Re: New proposal for RDF* Semantics

What advantages does this semantics have over a mapping to RDF reification?


I also do not understand why S*, etc., need special semantics.


peter


On 1/7/21 4:35 PM, 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 15:28:08 UTC