W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > December 2020

Re: Agenda for 2020-12-11

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 16:25:15 +0100
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-ID: <a2c61fd2-4c36-9ace-343d-94f51ee69384@ercim.eu>

On 11/12/2020 15:52, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with going ahead with technical
> details while I am still unclear as to just what RDF* is supposed to be.  For
> example, it is still unclear to me whether embedded triples are also supposed
> to be asserted - the initial RDF* said yes, the current document says no, some
> people in the group seem to be arguing for yes.
That's precisely what the annotation syntax is meant to solve: instead 
of having to ways to interpret the same syntax (namely << ... >>), it 
proposes it proposes two different syntax that can cohabit, so that we 
don't need those two modes.
> Similarly, the uniqueness of
> embedded triples does not appear to me to be determined - the initial RDF* and
> the current documents say yes in their formal sections but central examples
> have fatal flaws if embedded triples are unique.
I still disagree that these flaws are fatal, but I agree that we have a 
problem that needs solving.
> Can we please get these foundational problems ironed out before worrying about
> formal minutae?

In my defense, in the last two calls, I did put on the agenda the 
discussion on the following test-case

https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/tests/semantics/manifest.html#all-identical-embedded-triples-are-the-same

which was precisely intended to settle this question. Last time, the 
discussion drifted on the "syntactic sugar" discussion. So I have 
assumed that this question was more pressing for the community than the 
"unique triple" question (although clearly they are related). That's why 
I put "syntactic sugar" on the agenda here. Believe me, I wish as much 
as you to settle the "unique triple" issue...

>
>
> peter
>
>
> On 12/10/20 1:48 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> tomorrow's call will be again on
>> https://classe-publique.univ-lyon1.fr/cha-2x1-tjt-iu3,
>>
>> at 4Pm UTC:
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=RDF%2A+call&iso=20201211T16&p1=1440&ah=1
>>
>> and we will use W3C IRC server (http://irc.w3.org/) to minute the call, on
>> channel #rdf-star
>>
>>
>>
>> I propose the following Agenda:
>>
>> * New people on the call introduce themselves
>>
>> * Review pending actions
>>
>>      -
>> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
>>
>> * Discuss the SPARQL* query semantics proposed by Olaf
>>
>>      - https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/8#issuecomment-734258118
>>
>>      Please have a look at it ahead of the call
>>
>> * Discuss the annotation syntax
>>
>>      - https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/9
>>      - pull-request: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/58
>>      - preview: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/58.html
>>      - diff:
>> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/58/2160503...7479002.html
>>
>>      This extension of Turtle* have been around for a while on the mailing
>> list, so it would be good to document it more visibly. I would also like to
>> discuss how this makes the distinction between SA-mode and PG-mode moot
>> (https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/58.html#sa-mode-and-pg-mode).
>>
>> * Continue the discussion on syntactic sugar
>>
>>      - https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/37
>>
>>
>> * Keep 15 minutes for open-ended discussions
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>


Received on Friday, 11 December 2020 15:25:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 11 December 2020 15:25:20 UTC