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

Re: RDF* vs RDF vs named graphs

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:55:52 +0000
Message-ID: <0102017618cb69c6-f1c49ddd-dc02-46f3-9da9-033d5d185007-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>

> On 2020-11-30, at 09:48:18, Miel Vander Sande <miel.vandersande@meemoo.be> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> I appreciate the work this group is doing in terms of making the interpretation of reification clear and usable. Its main goal is still to provide compatibility with the PG world, where properties over a group of edges simply doesn't exist. I think this limited scope actually helps getting somewhere within reasonable time. 

in order for this effort to yield a useful result it will need to do more than "provide compatibility with the PG world”.
during the call last friday, one exchange included

    blake: I want to inquire a bit to see the aspects of embedded graph, embedded quad
    <thomas> +1 to blake: keeping the possibility open to have embedded quads in the future
    pchampin: A very good question by blake. There should be an issue for that in the repo. Yet another separate question 
    ... that need to be checked and discussed 
    ... Anyone wants to react?
    <pchampin> ACTION: blake to submit an issue on embedded quads

that is, quads are seen as “something to be discussed”.
the statistics on our sites suggest a stronger imperative.
while triples dominate quads on a free site by a ratio of five to one, which would suggest that to claim pg-compatibility suffices, on an enterprise site the ratio is fifty to one in the opposite direction.
in those contexts, if rdf* does not provide for quads, it will be of little use.

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Monday, 30 November 2020 10:56:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 30 November 2020 10:56:10 UTC