Re: 回复: Relationship and difference between N3 and RDF*

Dear Joy,

On 08/06/2021 17:54, Joy lix wrote:
>
> Dear William:
>
> Thank you very much for your detailed explanation of N3, TRIG, and 
> RDF*,  I now have a general idea of how they relate. But in practice, 
> I still don't know which one to choose.
>
> In most cases, can I use N-quads or named graph, Like this:
>
>         ex:bob a ex:Person .
>
>         ex:bob ex:haschild  ex:meli  ex:ng1 .
>
>         ex:ng1 ex:saidBy  ex:lucy .
>
> Does this have the same effect as RDF* ?
>
With named graphs, you can make assertions about a whole graph.

RDF-star is designed to allow you to make assertions about individual 
statements.

Of course, one can emulate one with the other (modeling a single 
statement as a named graph containing only that statement, or modeling a 
named graph as a collection of embedded triples). But that's not always 
ideal.

Note that both solutions can actually co-exist, as RDF-star also extends 
the notion of RDF dataset, and extends the concrete syntaxes N-Quads and 
TriG.


> In addition, about “N3 adds an If-Then style of decision making in the 
> form of logical implications and variables”, I would like to know the 
> current progress in this respect, what kind of expression will be 
> used?   Does it have anything to do with ruleML or DMN?
>
I recommend that you move that part of the discussion to 
public-n3-dev@w3.org :)

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-n3-dev/

   best

> Best,
>
> Joylix
>
> *发件人: *William Van Woensel <mailto:william.vanwoensel@gmail.com>
> *发送时间: *2021年6月7日21:23
> *收件人: *Joy lix <mailto:joylix4112@outlook.com>; public-rdf-star@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-rdf-star@w3.org>
> *抄送: *Dörthe Arndt <mailto:doerthe.arndt@ugent.be>
> *主题: *Re: Relationship and difference between N3 and RDF*
>
> Hi Joy,
>
> Thanks for looking into Notation3 (N3). Re the W3C specification - it 
> builds on top of prior "complete" W3C submissions (e.g., see here 
> <https://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/> and here 
> <https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3>) - hence the new 
> incomplete spec <https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/> may be giving a bit 
> of a misleading view on the current state of N3: there are already 
> mature systems that implement N3 (Eye and cwm). Our effort at 
> https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/ <https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/> is 
> meant to further standardize and flesh out N3, since the prior 
> documents are a bit vague on certain aspects.
>
> Re the difference with TriG: N3 allows quoted graphs (a.k.a. cited 
> formulae <https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/#cformulae>) to be utilized 
> within triple statements, e.g., ":william :said { :william :wrote 
> :moby_dick }", whereas TriG supports graph statements such as 
> ":authorship_lies { :william :wrote :moby_dick }" that allow 
> specifying named graphs. Both serve similar purposes - attaching 
> context, provenance, and general metadata to statements - but have 
> different semantics. Well, AFAIK named graphs do not really have an 
> agreed-upon semantics - see here 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-rdf11-datasets-20140225/> for a list 
> of possible interpretations of named graphs - while cited formulae 
> have more of a fixed semantics as referentially-opaque RDF graphs 
> (this corresponds to a particular interpretation 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-rdf11-datasets-20140225/#the-graph-name-denotes-the-named-graph-or-the-graph> 
> of named graphs).
>
> You may notice that this is where there is an overlap with RDF*, since 
> it also means to allow attaching metadata to statements - in their 
> case, by simplifying reification within RDF.
>
> Hope that answers your question.
>
> Regards,
>
> William
>
> On 2021-06-05 7:25 p.m., Joy lix wrote:
>
>     I'm a beginner in semantic technology, and I'm learning about RDF*.
>
>     I notice that another W3C specification is also being drafted :
>     https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/ <https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/> .
>     Also it mentioned: “N3 adds an If-Then style of decision making in
>     the form of logical implications and variables”.
>
>     But I feel like it's not quite up to speed with RDF*, because
>     there are a lot of sections that still say "bla...".
>
>     I don't know how it is related to or different from RDF*, there is
>     also the W3C's TRIG, would some expert explain this briefly?   Thanks.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Joylix
>