RDF-star profile "transparent" [Was: Re: The way forward]

Le 01/05/2024 à 17:27, Franconi Enrico a écrit :
> 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)

This is only about the first profile you propose.
I have a problem with the way triple terms are interpreted.
In your semantics, there is a mapping RE from IR x IP x IR into IR, 
called the denotation of triple terms.
This is simply saying that, for any sequence of 3 resources, the second 
of which is a property, there is a corresponding resource in the 
universe. It does not imply in any way that the first element of the 
sequence plays the role of a subject, that the third element plays the 
role of an object, and that the 2nd element is assumed to be relating 
the other two. As far as this formal semantics is concerned, this 3-uple 
of resources could simply be 3 unrelated resources of interest that are 
ordered like this. This is quite different from "being an RDF triple" or 
being an expression of a statement.

This proposal is in fact very similar to the one I proposed a while ago:

https://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/W3C/RDF-star-semantics/

except that, additionally, in my proposal, the resource associated with 
a triple term would have to be connected to the first, second, and third 
element of the triple term by way of 3 properties. This ensures that 
when one is interpreting a triple term, it is interpreted with an 
assumption of what roles the 3 components of the triple term are playing.

--AZ

>   * 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
> 

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
CS 62362
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 49 97 02
https://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2024 12:58:36 UTC