Re: RDF* vs RDF vs named graphs

> On 1. Dec 2020, at 09:20, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:

[…]

> Features that have been stable from the very beginning (e.g. "abstract" triples rather than triple occurrences)

How do you support this claim?

RDF* is about annotating statements that actually have been stated. It’s poster child usecase, capturing provenance, only makes sense for occurrences. It positions itself as an alternative to RDF reifcation, singleton properties and singleton graphs - all approaches that target occurrences.
Everything here screams 'occurrence'.

There is one exception: the case when in SA mode an embedded statement doesn’t reflect an actual occurrence. But this is a corner case, a niche usecase - although definitely an important one IMO.

Thomas

> are usually already implemented consistently across systems. Changing them would have a big impact on both users and implementers, and may end up stopping the momentum that got us here in the first place. Changes of this kind remain an option and deserved to be discussed, in my opinion, but only if we have a very compelling argument and a large consensus to change them.