Re: Towards RDF* semantics focused on triple instances

On Dec 3, 2020, at 06:11 PM, thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
>  provenance annotation to a triple, 
>  triple and annotation both in the same graph. 


I do not (always, often) wish to put the triple(s) I wish to 
annotate and its (their) annotation in the same Named Graph!

I (generally, if not always) wish to keep these separate, 
likely with several annotation triples in one Named Graph 
annotating one or more, up to but not necessarily all, of 
the Triples in another Named Graph.

I (generally, if not always) wish to keep my annotations 
distinct from the annotations made by other annotators, 
and to keep all of these distinct from the triples (or
graphs) being annotated.


> This is the usecase that everybody hopes and expects RDF*
> to solve.

By what means have you surveyed the minds of everybody on 
Earth about their hopes and expectations of RDF*?

Or even of everybody on this mailing list?

(The collection of people who have some interest in RDF* falls
somewhere between these. I'll accept the explanation for the
latter to be expandable to this larger collection.)

If nothing else, I can tell you that your survey method is
fatally flawed, because it hasn't captured *my* wishes.


Somewhat facetiously, because I believe I know the answer, 
I ask -- is there a Use Cases and/or Requirements document 
related to RDF*?

I should like to read it, if so, but I have not been able to
locate such a document as yet.  Please guide me!


> The most pressing issue is probably defining the meaning
> of an embedded triple which is not actually asserted in
> the same graph. This issue is specific to SA mode but
> since SA mode is the more triple-centric syntax than PG
> mode this issue should be solved.

Hang on a minute, here -- you just said that everyone wants
to annotate triples in the same graph as the triple which
is being annotated!  Now you're saying otherwise‽ 

I'm sure you've also noticed the recent thread on github,
where I was told that "mode" is passé, and RDF* will only
be one of PG or SA -- and I've also been assured recently
that the current spec is all about SA, so why your focus
is most strongly on PG is even more confusing.


> I like Peter’s idea to coin specific terms like :subject*
> and :object*. I wouldn’t mind if there was also a class
> :Statement* or something to that effect.

No, please, I cry desperately, no!

Punctuation-appendaged-names are horrific creations that should 
not exist in any realm where future people may want to search 
for them -- because punctuation is not indexed by *any* web 
crawler nor search engine.

"RDF*" is unsearchable.  The results you get are for "RDF".


> the "passive" variant of SA mode

And now there are 2 variants of SA mode to further confuse the
issue of answering, "What is 'RDF*' and what is it good for?"


I am sorry if I appear to be doing nothing but poking holes
wherever I can.  I suppose I am doing just that, but it is in
service of greater clarity, and, eventually, a better RDF,
whether that is as "RDF*" or "RDF++" or "RDF 2.0".

Regards,

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