Hi Jos, On lördag 5 september 2020 kl. 18:19:40 CEST Jos De Roo wrote: > 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 No. This is a statement about a graph, where this graph happens to consist of a single triple (:a, :b, :c). In contrast, RDF* (no matter which of the two modes) is about making statements about individual triples. Best, Olaf > and that > <<:a :b :c>> :p :o. could be PG mode > > Jos > > -- https://josd.github.io/ <http://josd.github.io/> > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ghislain Atemezing < > > ghislain.atemezing@icloud.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Le 4 sept. 2020 ā 00:30, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> 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 > > http://atemezing.orgReceived on Monday, 7 September 2020 09:31:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 7 September 2020 09:31:20 UTC