Meeting minutes
more discussion of https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html
<enrico> :e rdf:nameOf _:b1 .
<enrico> _:b1 rdf:subject :s .
<enrico> _:b1 rdf:predicate :p .
<enrico> _:b1 rdf:object :o .
<enrico> :e rdf:nameOf _:b1 . _:b1 rdf:subject :s . _:b1 rdf:predicate :p . _:b1 rdf:object :o .
<enrico> :e rdf:nameOf _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:subject :s . _:b2 rdf:predicate :p . _:b2 rdf:object :o .
pronoun "he" does not always mean the same pronoun "he". same with pronoun b-nodes.
<AndyS> "Agreed syntax to Turtle" -- https://
<niklasl> +1 to Gregg
<gkellogg> My point was to draw a similarity, but incompatibility, between option 1 and option 3. Option 2 seems closer to option 3, but the blank node denotes a triple token (from RDF 1.1 Semantics), which is already different from a triple type.
<tl> repeating this: < :e | :s :p :o >> is IMO a valid alternative to option 3, and maps to option 1
<tl> << :e | :s :p :o >> of course
<doerthe> can you please re-post, I joined later :)
<doerthe> thank you, TallTed
<niklasl> Option 1 is "too close" to the token, option 2 is indirecting to tokens as if they where types...
<AndyS> https://
<AndyS> "... with `_:b` a fresh new blank node, unique within the RDF graph."
<enrico> email of the 23rd January by me with subject [IMPORTANT] Necessary revision of the sugar proposal
<enrico> Email with well-founded condition for option 2: https://
<niklasl> My (perhaps weak) concern with option one (semantically) is that it conflates a triple token and a use of a triple... From another perspective, I also think it easily conflates two or more (see "overclaims" in https://
<niklasl> RDF/XML rdf:ID on arcs only works for option 1 with hash IRIs.
assertion != truth!
<niklasl> +1 to how Andy put it re. "why not option 4 / RDFn", basically it may be a good idea if we started defining RDF from scratch.
<niklasl> (Caveat: not sure I paraphrazed it correctly.)
<tl> Dörthe says that Option 2 introduces opacity through the back door
<enrico> https://
<enrico> :e1 rdf:nameOf _:b1 . _:b1 rdf:subject :s . _:b1 rdf:predicate :p . _:b1 rdf:object :o .
<enrico> :e2 rdf:nameOf _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:subject :s . _:b2 rdf:predicate :p . _:b2 rdf:object :o .
<enrico> e1 rdf:nameOf _:b1 . _:b1 rdf:subject :s . _:b1 rdf:predicate :p . _:b1 rdf:object :o .
<enrico> :e2 rdf:nameOf _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:subject :ss . _:b2 rdf:predicate :p . _:b2 rdf:object :o . :s owl:same-as :ss .
<doerthe> entails: :e2 rdf:nameOf _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:subject :s . _:b2 rdf:predicate :p . _:b2 rdf:object :o .
<doerthe> but no well-formedness with: entails: :e2 rdf:nameOf _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:subject :s , :ss. _:b2 rdf:predicate :p . _:b2 rdf:object :o .
<doerthe> but no well-formedness with: :e2 rdf:nameOf _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:subject :s , :ss. _:b2 rdf:predicate :p . _:b2 rdf:object :o .
<tl> merging option 1 and 2: [] rdf:subject :s ; rdf:predicate :p ; rdf:object :o ; rdf:hasName :e
Schroedinger's blank node.