Re: RDF-star use cases from Amazon Neptune

On 12/6/21 09:49, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 12/5/21 3:47 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


>> Anyone can do anything with anything.  But SPARQL and SPARQL* are are 
>> official.  In my opinion, you can't analyze RDF without taking SPARQL into 
>> account.  My opinion is that most uses of RDF graphs go through SPARQL and 
>> thus the behaviour of SPARQL is much more important than the RDF 
>> semantics.  So I would say that you can't consider RDF as strictly a 
>> non-counting logic.
>> This is just like the situation with relational data bases. Although 
>> relational data bases are strictly defined as sets of tuples, SQL uses 
>> multi-sets in some places.
> Hi Peter,
> What do you mean by "SPARQL* (a/k/a SPARQL-Star) has become official? 
> Naturally, the same question applies to RDF* (a/k/a RDF-Star).

What I mean is that SPARQL* has the same status (part of the WG docment) as 
RDF*.   That would have been a much better way of saying it.


Received on Monday, 6 December 2021 16:54:47 UTC