Re: RDF*/SPARQL* syntax


On onsdag 4 september 2019 kl. 12:21:53 CEST thomas lörtsch wrote:
> +1 to being more clear in discussions about the dialect/mode of RDF*
> discussed

Agreed. I think I have mentioned the assumed mode in all relevant cases in my 
earlier emails.
> + is there a reason why the abstarct RDF* syntax with () braces is also part
> of this discussion? I’m mainly interested in the look and feel of RDF* in
> RDF. Consequently I’d like all examples to be in Turtle style if there is
> no good reason to resort to abstract syntax for e.g. comparison purposes.

The reason is the following: In the earlier emails in this thread, we have 
been discussing alternative options for what Turtle* (or some serialization 
format for RDF*) could look like. In this context it is important to be clear 
about what an expression in the proposed serialization format is meant to 
represent in terms of the RDF* data model. To this end, the abstract syntax 
needs to be used because the data model is defined in terms of that abstract 

> + I’d like to see an example of some size (like maybe 10 to 20 lines) that
> shows the central design attributes of RDF* and clarifies what it is and
> what it’s not. E.g. some people (including me) initially were under the
> impression that RDF* could represent sets of triples on the top level (like
> named graphs). That may indicate a sloppy reading of the RDF* papers but
> still: an example of some size should and easily could clarify such
> misconceptions. Such an example should also help us to show and comprehend
> the consequences of e.g. asymmetry of RDF* nodes in RDF, PG vs. SA mode
> etc.

I will try to incorporate that into the email that I am planning to write 
about the two modes.

Regarding your initial "impression that RDF* could represent sets of triples 
on the top level (like named graphs)," let me clarify again: the sole purpose 
of RDF* is to allow users to make statements about individual triples. It is  
*not* meant to make statements about sets of triples (aka RDF graphs). I am 
not sure what made you get this impression that the RDF* approach also 
supports the latter. It does not. If there is a specific document/blog post/etc 
from which you got this impression, let me know and I will try to change that.


Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 06:18:33 UTC