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. peterReceived on Monday, 6 December 2021 16:54:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 6 December 2021 16:54:48 UTC