Re: Annotation syntax [was: SPARQL* test suite]

Am not really close to this discussion, but still, I tried to implement
things in N3 and it
appears to me that:
{:a :b :c} :p :o. could be SA mode
and that
<<:a :b :c>> :p :o. could be PG mode


-- <>

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ghislain Atemezing <> wrote:

> Hello,
> Le 4 sept. 2020 à 00:30, Holger Knublauch <> a
> écrit :
> Thinking this just a little bit further, there is a potential for better
> names for these dialects.
> If RDF* in the most general sense is SA mode then the PG mode could be,
> for example, called RDF+ aka RDF plus. It would be a bit like OWL Full vs
> OWL DL, or SHACL-SPARQL vs SHACL Core. Some tools will elect to support PG
> mode/RDF+ only.
> +1. I like this analogy. Probably RDF+ can confused some of us using RDFS+
> (as a profile to do reasoning).
> What about saying RDF* when you support both SA and PG (like OWL Full),
> then RDF*-XX (XX = SA or PG) if someone supports just one of them?
> Best,
> Ghislain
> -----------------------------------
> Ghislain Atemezing

Received on Saturday, 5 September 2020 16:20:05 UTC