W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > January 2021

Re: New proposal for RDF* Semantics

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 00:34:17 +0000
To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-ID: <2d3b6913-a3e7-483b-4136-79fd1b83efaf@apache.org>
Please could you clarify with an example:

"For each embedded triple (s, p, o)"


An RDF* triple used as the subject or object of another RDF* triple is 
called an embedded triple.

<<:s :p :o>> :q1 :r1 .
<<:s :p :o>> :q2 :r2 .


<<:s :p :o>> :q1 :r1 ; :q2 :r2 .

i.e. <<:s :p :o>> used twice as the subject even if via other turtle 
syntactic sugar.

(this is to tease out what is meant by "RDF* syntactic sugar" when it is 
not about (concrete) syntax, but is really an abstract model 'syntax' 


On 07/01/2021 21:35, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was hoping to send this earlier so that we could discuss this during 
> our next call, but given the short delay, it will have to wait for a 
> later call.
> However, I just pushed a PR which contains a new version of the "RDF* 
> Semantics" section This is the result of lengthy discussions with Olaf 
> and Doerthe (huge thanks to them), as well as discussions on the mailing 
> list and valuable feedback from Peter and Antoine in particular.
>      https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/81
> It follows the idea of making RDF* syntactic sugar on top of RDF (cf 
> issue 37), at least at the abstract syntax level. Rather than 
> reinventing a semantics from the ground up, RDF* semantics is now 
> defined as a semantic extension (a.k.a. entailment regime) of RDF 
> (similarly to RDFS or OWL).
> Yet, it aims to avoid the pitfalls of a full-fledged syntactic sugar 
> approach. More precisely: it tries to avoid users from describing 
> ill-formed or incomplete RDF* triples using plain-RDF syntaxes.
> Any feedback welcome.
Received on Friday, 8 January 2021 00:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 8 January 2021 00:34:34 UTC