Re: First published draft

Dear Martynas,

first of all, this first published draft is just that: a draft. It 
represents the current state of the discussions, not a definitive consensus.

On 18/02/2021 19:27, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> How does it relate/compare to the "RDF* semantics without RDF* graphs"
> proposal by Peter?
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Feb/0038.html

The main difference between the semantics proposed in the published 
draft, and the one from that email is this:

* the specs relies on RDF-star's abstract syntax, mapping it to (plain) 
RDF's abstract syntax to define it's semantics

* the email bypasses RDF-star's abstract syntax, mapping directly from 
Turtle-star to (plain) RDF's abstract syntax


During our last call [2], some of us (me included) have expressed 
concerns about bypassing RDF-star's abstract syntax. It is a useful 
abstraction of the different concrete syntaxes (defined in our draft or 
elsewhere, as e.g. JSON-LD-star), and in particular for SPARQL-star. 
Getting rid of the abstract syntax would need a complete rewrite of 
SPARQL-star's query semantics...

   best


[1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/95

[2] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-02-12.html#item02

>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM Pierre-Antoine Champin
> <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> we finally have a first published draft of our CG specification of RDF* :)
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/2021-02-18.html
>>
>> Please note that, for the sake of consistency, I have moved the editor's
>> draft to
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html
>>
>> but the old URL should properly redirect.
>>
>>     best
>>
>>