- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:05:58 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
And one big disadvantage of this semantics is that all literals, all blank nodes, and all literals will be nodes in the RDF graphs. In particular, this makes it difficult (probably impossible) to have fresh blank nodes. peter On 1/8/21 10:27 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 16:06:13 UTC