W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > September 2019

Re: RDF*/SPARQL* syntax

From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:14:10 +0000
To: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Message-ID: <5450472.ptMAvRjpL5@porty3>
Hi Ted,

On tisdag 3 september 2019 kl. 20:11:11 CEST Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 04:13 PM, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
> > However, the aspect of RDF* that you mention exists only when using
> > RDF*/SPARQL* in PG mode. It is not clear yet whether we end up with
> > proposing only PG mode, or only SA mode, or maybe both as alternative
> > options.
> Setting all else aside, I cannot be the only person whose eyes
> and mind are glazing over a bit trying to keep track of RDF* vs
> RDF*/PG vs RDF*/SA vs RDF.

I think I get your point. Perhaps I should emphasize again that I am *not* 
saying that a specification document for the RDF*/SPARQL* approach needs to 
introduce both modes (but I don't want to rule out such an option either). 
Each mode has its pros and cons, and these should be discussed--for which it 
is necessary to have a name for them and a definition of what they are.

I am planning to start a separate thread to discuss the two modes.

> RDF is an acronym, from "Resource Description Framework".
> 
> RDF* is ... an acronym plus a splat?  "Resource Description
> Framework Star"?

None who I have talked about so far had any issue with simply calling it "RDF 
Star" (instead of trying to treat it as an acronym).

> And how are we to read the Modes -- "RDF-star Property Graph Mode"
> and "RDF-star separate-assertions mode", or PG-Mode (which puts me
> in mind of the USA's motion picture rating system)?  As I'm reading
> this thread, these appear to be mutually incompatible -- but there's
> no obvious signal as to which mode is active on any given TURTLE*
> file

I see this problem. However, if the specification document introduces only one 
of the two modes, this problem disappears. Therefore, I think we can table the 
discussion of this problem for the moment.

> (and what will that file's extension be?  Clearly, `TTL*`
> won't work, as it's both 4 characters, and includes a special.)

In the RDF* tools (https://github.com/RDFstar/RDFstarTools) we are using the 
file extension '.ttls'. 
Blazegraph, however, seems to use the file extension '.ttlx' (https://
wiki.blazegraph.com/wiki/index.php/Reification_Done_Right).
So, this question is certainly something to be addressed in a specification 
document.

> SPARQL* and TURTLE* hit me similarly.
> 
> Some will dismissively say this is just bikeshedding, but good
> naming matters, especially when things that *look* very similar
> must be interpreted very differently -- such as TURTLE* vs TURTLE.

I wouldn't consider it to be *very* different. Turtle* is an extension of 
Turtle after all. That is, every valid Turtle file is also a valid Turtle* file. 
Hence, a Turtle* parser may be used to parse a Turtle file and the resulting 
RDF* graph happens to be an RDF graph. Also, if you have a Turtle parser, I 
think it is not too difficult to extend it into a Turtle* parser (speaking of my 
own experience from having done that for the aforementioned RDF* tools).

> Even in this thread, RDF*/SA interpretations have been applied (by
> the only person who could really be familiar with them) to data
> which was meant (to the degree that the rest of us can do so) to
> be read as RDF*/PG (since that's the only significantly publicly
> presented mode to date).

Well, when I applied an interpretation assuming SA mode earlier in the thread, 
I believe I made clear that this is the current assumption. Then, the point of 
doing so was to also highlight what SA mode would be (as opposed to PG mode).

> This sort of ambiguity leads to misinterpretation, misunderstanding,
> lowered uptake, heightened confusion, and I fear, to an increased
> derogation of any Semantic Web.

I understand. Yet, again, my intention at this point is to put the options on 
the table.

Olaf

> Just some further thoughts, as I try to keep up with this list.
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> --
> A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
> 
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | 
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | 
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
> 
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
>                              //              http://twitter.com/TallTed

> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/

>          20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
>      Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/

>      Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/

>      LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/

>      Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink

>      Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware

> Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers


Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 06:14:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:57 UTC