- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:28:30 +0100
- To: RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
good morning;
> On 17. Mar 2024, at 11:47, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/03/2024 08:45, John Walker wrote:
> ...
>> If so, being very simple here, could one entertain introducing a TRIPLE keyword somewhat analogous to GRAPH into the grammar for SPARQL and constrain that to only allow a single triple pattern.
>> WHERE {
>> GRAPH ?g {
>> ?s ?p ?o .
>> TRIPLE ?t { ?s ?p ?o }
>> ?t ?t_p ?t_o .
>> }
>> }
>
a response which isolates just this single statement of fact in john walker's note:
> > this does not allow for naming statements without asserting them
>
> [...]
but neglects to consider any of the other issues which john walker posed.
it does however demonstrate that the two "star" groups have, after more than three years of deliberation, still not understood how to entrain in document syntax four principal(?) interpretations of a triple.
the groups have been searching for, deliberating about, proposing variants for a magic syntax which embodies just the right, fixed interpretation.
perhaps the better approach would have been - and would still be, to develop mean express and apply varied interpretations.
as an implementor, this situation is disconcerting - especially when one of your members has proposed a method to accomplish those interpretations on the basis of graph annotations and the group has made no reasonable effort to consider that proposal.
best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2024 11:28:47 UTC