Re: Presentation about reifiers and graphs

Hi Niklas,

thank you for this! A few remarks:


Slide #6:

<< :Alice :bought :LennyThe Lion >> .

would be useless in practice as it has no annotation and can’t be referred to in annotations. So maybe re-design the course of examples a bit. Or leave it for the sake of the course of arguments and add a footnote.


Slide #7:

I fear that I disagree. The reifier doesn’t refer to a truth. The fact is a truth, but the reifier doesn’t refer to a fact. The abstract triple term is just a description of a triple that MIGHT be. The reifier refers to a possible triple, not an actual one. 

Which b.t.w. is one reason why I think that we need an rdfs:states construct. So this is indeed consequential…


Slide #9

See my comments to Ora’s slides


Slides #10 ff

All these graphics miss the difference between the actual fact and the reifications. They are all misleading. This is really problematic.


Slide #17 ff

I agree with Enrico that named graphs are featured too prominently. I like it that you start the discussion which we necessarily need to have, but maybe we should have it first in the WG before we push it into the open so extensively. 


Sorry for the late arrival of these comments!

Best,
Thomas



> On 18. Sep 2024, at 23:30, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you all for the valuable feedback! I've read all replies
> (including those off-list) and much appreciate the help. (My lack of
> replying is due to lack of time.) Alas, I've not yet been able to
> collate and address it all (I was away on a conference), but I've
> updated the presentation with some few adjustments and additions (it
> is still at [1], with diffs at [2]).
> 
> The goal is to introduce reifiers, and also to compare them to graphs
> and named graphs, since questions about their differences are
> recurring. I want this to make sense practically, without straying
> from formal definitions. As expected, there are some disputed points;
> and I appreciate all help in reaching these goals. I'm sure the
> presentation can be made shorter, clearer, and more inclusive.
> 
> (If I sense there is enough rough consensus on its message, I'd be
> happy to present this at TPAC on behalf of the group.)
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
> [1]: <https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/>
> [2]: <https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-docs/compare/main...dev>
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 1:28 PM Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I've drafted a presentation for the purpose of introducing reifiers
>> and comparing them to graphs. It's currently at:
>> https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/
>> 
>> Ora: you're of course free to take what you like and discard the rest
>> for your TPAC slides.
>> 
>> I tried to keep it on par with the baseline, but of course there may
>> be wording in there still to be agreed upon. If you see fit I can make
>> a PR for further collaboration in getting a version of it to
>> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/tree/main/docs.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Niklas
>

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2024 15:49:59 UTC