W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2021

Re: Request for feedback about RDF-star

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:01:19 +0100
To: Mark Wallace <mark.wallace@semanticarts.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a4b883be-fe79-d9de-fc50-426b3b570c0d@ercim.eu>

On 24/03/2021 12:53, Mark Wallace wrote:
>
> I worked ok for JSON-LD.   If not adding a lot (says below "a new 
> IRI", so just 1?
>
Yes at the moment, we only have plans for one new IRI.

It is possible that we add a few more before the spec is stabilized, but 
I don't expect it to be more than a few.

> ), I'm ok with adding to RDF ns.
>
> +1
>
> *From:* Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2021 5:21 AM
> *To:* Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Request for feedback about RDF-star
>
> Dear Semantic Web community,
>
> as you may already know, an informal "task force" has been created in 
> the RDF-DEV Community group [1], in order to produce a specification 
> document for RDF-star (née RDF*) [2]. RDF-star extends RDF with native 
> support for talking about RDF statements (as an alternative to 
> standard reification), and already has a number of implementations. 
> The goal of this work is to help ensure that all implementations are 
> actually interoperable (which is not quite the case at the moment). 
> Once this specification reaches a stable state, and provided that we 
> get enough interest from RDF implementers and users, we will try to 
> push it to Recommendation track.
>
> We require your feedback on the following question. We aim to mint a 
> new IRI to be used with RDF-star. In your opinion, is it 
> acceptable/desirable to propose its inclusion in the RDF namespace 
> [3], or should we instead mint it in a separate namespace? We could 
> not really reach consensus in the group, hence we wish to get more 
> opinions from the larger community.
>
> We understand that, as a Community Group, we have no authority to 
> /actually/ update the namespace (this would be done only by a future 
> WG). But if we succeed in bringing this to a REC, changing from 
> rdf-star:X to rdf:X at that point will be impossible in practice 
> (remember the "0.1" part in FOAF IRIs?). And we also want to avoid 
> repeating the confusing namespace dichotomy of rdf: and rdfs:. If we 
> don't make it to a REC, this will mean that RDF-star is not widely 
> used anyway, and so our "polluting" the RDF namespace will have had no 
> real impact.
>
> Some people in the group, on the other hand, feel that the RDF 
> namespace should considered fixed (although other specs have already 
> added terms to it [4,5]), or that the semantics of RDF-star is not 
> stable enough.
>
> The whole discussion can be found in the minutes of our call [6].
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback.
>
>   pa
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-dev/ 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-dev/>
>
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/ 
> <https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/>
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# 
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns>
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/>
>
> [5] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/>
>
> [6] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-03-12.html#t04 
> <https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-03-12.html#t04>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2021 12:01:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:06 UTC