Re: Additional data vs metadata

I don't know if I understand the question clearly. But I think the answer to your problem is simply to use different properties names, more vocabularies, or nested {||}. Not a more complex syntax. The {||} extension exists for solving a practical problem, due to the extreme verbosity of reification. It's not just a place to put metadata to. Or at least this is my understanding.
 
 
 

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:48 PM
From: "Anthony Moretti" <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
Subject: Additional data vs metadata

I'm putting this in a separate thread because I think it's important enough. I'm of the view that there should be separation between additional data and metadata. RDF-star is a great model for metadata, but because there's no corresponding way to add additional data, people are using RDF-star for both. It's like a step was missed. The solution I propose for it is in another thread, "Three ideas[https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2022Jan/0024.html]", specifically what I call a "complex statement". I'll quickly try to explain what I think the problem is, I'm rushing this email a bit, so if something's wrong let me know.
 

There are three different things that in my view are constantly getting muddled in RDF-star examples. If a triple is in the subject position it's common to see annotations that, in my view, actually have different subjects, but you wouldn't know it from the way they're all grouped together. The subject could be:

The relationship/event.The abstract description of the relationship/event.Specific occurrences of the abstract description of the relationship/event.
The terminology I'm using:

Triples where (1) is the subject are what I describe as "additional data".Triples where (2) is the subject are what I describe as "metadata".Triples where (3) is the subject are also what I describe as "metadata", but the proposed "occurrenceOf" vocabulary already comes to the rescue here.
The intention of RDF-star, if I understand correctly, is to solve (2). But because there's no equally simple way to express (1) people are also using RDF-star for that. There's a difference between a description of a relationship/event, and a description of a description of that relationship/event. Very quick example where (1) and (2) are separated:
 
:LizT :starredIn :JaneEyre
    {
        :role :HelenBurns,
        :pay-USD 10000,
    }
    {|
        :statedBy :Bob,
        :statedIn :Wikipedia,
    |}

 So, very quick summary because I'm hurrying this, my suggestion is that it be made clear to users of RDF-star that it's only for metadata, or in parallel we come up with an equally simple syntax for n-ary relationships so that there are simple ways to model both things without getting them muddled.
 
If I'm missing something here and it's not so black and white, or if you don't think it's a problem, please suggest some examples that we can talk about. Sorry for the hasty way this was written.

Regards
Anthony

Received on Monday, 14 February 2022 14:52:28 UTC