Re: RDF* vs RDF vs named graphs

That's valid and I also see the merit of having it as part of RDF* rather
than N3 (then should be well aligned and the nquads/trig syntaxes would be
rooted).
But AFAIK nobody actually officially dismissed including graph annotation,
so why not gather the stakeholders from enterprise, make a joint request
for scope expansion, and have a structured discussion there? Evidently, a
broader scope should come with the necessary engagement to manage the
debate, follow-up on issues, and draft the specs. Let's approach this
positively, this group is an opportunity :)

Op ma 30 nov. 2020 om 11:56 schreef james anderson <james@dydra.com>:

>
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>