Re: The way forward

I have written down the formal definition of two profiles in the wiki:

  *   RDF-star profile “transparent”<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-profile-%22transparent%22> (namely many-to-many transparent)
  *   RDF-star profile "functional opaque”<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-profile-%22functional-opaque%22> (namely many-to-one opaque)

They rely on two distinct properties - rdf:reifies and rdf:edge - and on two distinct syntactic categories - tripleTerm and opaqueTripleTerm.
For this reason, they could be just merged into a unique profile, which actually could be RDF-star itself.

Let me know comments,
cheers
—e.

On 25 Apr 2024, at 02:37, Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com> wrote:

[My apologies that this comes at the last moment before tomorrow’s meeting.]

We have had long discussions within the Neptune team about the ongoing debate in the WG. We want to find an amicable, consensus-based way forward. Obviously the support within the WG for the multi-triple reifier proposal is strong, and we understand that many WG members may not be willing to live with the single-triple reifier approach. That said, we also believe that we (Neptune and our OneGraph project) need to be true to our vision of the future of “graph interoperability”.

Thus, we would like to bring back the idea of profiles: one for the multi-triple reifier support, another for the single-triple option. This would allow implementors some leeway, and would ultimately let the graph marketplace choose. People already make choices about what technologies they use, sometimes based on the level of support different technology vendors offer. Bottom line: we do not want to block progress in the WG, and this would let us move towards finishing the specifications. I think it is better that we get the largest possible number of implementors building RDF 1.2 -compliant products, rather than some companies “opting out”.

Ora

--
Dr. Ora Lassila
Principal Technologist, Amazon Neptune