- From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:41:05 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
Richard, On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 16:14 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2019, at 12:15, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote: > > > > > My reaction to this: RDF* has the problem that it *almost* > > > addresses > > > a number of interesting use cases, but it addresses none of them > > > completely. > > > > Do you have any specific use cases in mind that RDF* is supposed to > > address but doesn't do so completely? > > One use case for RDF* is to replace RDF Reification. RDF* can replace > many, but not all uses of RDF Reification, so it doesn't address that > use case completely. > > Another use case for RDF* is to make RDF compatible with property > graphs. RDF* makes RDF almost, but not quite, compatible with > property graphs, so it doesn't address that use case completely. Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification! Now, back to your point that, due to not being able to address such use cases completely, some hard decisions will need to be made: I don't think there is any way to restrict/tighten what RDF* is such that complete compatibility with RDF reification can be achieved, and the same for complete compatibility with Property Graphs. For instance, disallowing triples in the object position of RDF* triples would not help in any of these two cases. Olaf > Best, > Richard
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2019 15:41:33 UTC