- From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 09:42:06 +0200
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
- Cc: Jos De Roo <josderoo@gmail.com>
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.org
Received on Monday, 7 September 2020 09:31:18 UTC