Re: Text about SPARQL-star built-in functions ready

On Mar 3, 2021, at 3:25 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/03/2021 21:34, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>>> On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:09 PM, James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> good evening;
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2021-03-02, at 18:56:40, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have implemented the proposal [1] to add the five new built-in functions to 
>>>>> the spec. See the following PR
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/118
>>>>> 
>>>>> For your convenience, here is the link to the preview:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/118.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> The changes are in Section 4.2 (SPARQL-star Grammar) and in the new Section 
>>>>> 4.4 (Function Definitions).
>>>>> 
>>>>> As agreed during our telco last Friday, I will leave this PR open for three 
>>>>> days so that your can take a look at it and raise concerns (if any). Unless 
>>>>> anyone brings forward reasons that this PR should not be merged, I will merge 
>>>>> it on Friday afternoon (CET).
>>>> 
>>>> i raise the concern, that the approach needs to comprehend quads before it will be usable.
>>> 
>>> I think this comment is more general than the specific functions added. It would be useful to have some examples that use various combinations of embedded triples, annotations, and these functions within named graphs.
>> +1 to that
>> 
>> Eventually, we need to understand the implications for N-Quads and TriG.
> My feeling is that they are pretty much covered by the definition of RDF-star dataset [1].
> 
>> (...) Basically, embedded triples go in the default graph, annotations stay in the graph in which they’re defined.
> I strongly disagree with the first part of that sentence.
> 
I mis-spoke. What I intended to say is that embedded triples, regardless of where they appear, are the same triple and have no named graph component. They don’t. “go” anywhere.

The annotation syntax asserts a triple within whatever graph contains it, and describes other triples, also in that graph, whose subject is an embedded triple.

The point is that embedded triples can’t be thought of as having a named graph component. 
> Embedded triples are terms, so they don't go in any graph (just like an IRI or a literal does not go in or belong to any graph). If they go anywhere, that is in another triple (as their subject or object).
> 
> In what was previously known as PG mode, the mention of an embedded triples caused that triple to be also asserted, and then the question would raise of where this assertion was added. But in the current spec, this question is moot.
> 
> PA
> 
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#dfn-dataset
> 
>