Now @p20n@w3c.social see w3c.social 🐘
Lyon, France
Joined October 2007
- Tweets 993
- Following 205
- Followers 452
- Likes 321
And if you are interested (and understand french...) I will give an extended version of this talk at @semwebpro on 2022-11-08 in Paris
At #w3cTPAC, @pchampin gives a lightning talk on what's happening in the @w3c "Data on the Web" space: #RDFstar, #KnowledgeGraphs, #RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash, etc. Watch his talk (w/ 🎬transcript and slides) at: w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/talk/pie…
2
6
so sorry I missed @SemanticsConf this year, but it was conficting with @w3c's TPAC. Note that we talked about RDF-star as well: w3.org/events/meetings/1b7fb… 😉
1
> Your example above has wiggle room for strangely differing interpretations.
AFAICT, the RDF-star report unambiguously specifies what the standard interpretation is.
w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html
If it does not, it needs to be fixed, which will be the job of the working group.
1
"Blank nodes belong to _one_ surface", but they can be reused by subsurfaces (see slide 28 in slideshare.net/PatHayes/blog…), which is similar to how they work in RDF-star.
1
1
The problem with modelling quoted triples as literals (with a dedicated datatype) would have been blank nodes. You would not have been able to model something like :
<#alice> foaf:knows _:bob {| ex:since 2019 [}.
_:bob foaf:name "Bob".
1
In contrast, every time you write (:s :p :o), you refer to a *new* collection, containing the 3 same elements. 2/2
Re. your question about using RDF collections instead of RDF-star quoted triples: there are several differences, but the most important one is that everytime you write << :s :p :o >> in a turtle-star file, you refer to the *same* triple. 1/2
1
1
@wohnjalker is it really better to say that a movie has actor a PerformanceRole? 😈 But fully agreed, naming matters, and my name choice in this example was poor. Renamed it to "withPerformanceRole".
1
Hard to make an elaborate response in a tweet... I tried to sum it up in this gitst: gist.github.com/pchampin/06f…
1
5
to complement: 1) You need to introduce a *node* -- it does not have to be blank. 2) The example in the RDF-star spec presents a patter, that can be generalized: different relations between a quoted triple and its occurrences/realizations/roles...
1
2
I see one clear benefit in the RDF-star approach: it does not "destruct" the original triple (assuming you want to qualify a role that still holds). With the intermediate "role" node, you need to query your data differently for "simple" relations and "qualified" relations.
you might want to look at hjson hjson.github.io/ It supports comments and other niceties, but is closer to JSON (and not space sensitive AFAICT)
2
2
This is beyond ironic. I'm stranded in Vienna after a workshop about *interoperability*. The reason: a defective headset in the BA plane's cockpit, and the only compatible headset they can find has to be delivered from London!
2
5
16
Congrats. I really liked this paper :)
Best research paper award goes to bridging the semantic gap! Congratulations Eduard Kamburjan #eswc2022
1
Interesting read. Unfortunately, it contains inaccuracies. "If the statement had been made again, despite referring to the exact three resources, it would have been a different assertion." See w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html… @kurt_cagle
If a fact-checker quotes somebody else's statements as an RDF graph, this RDF graph should comply with RDF's monotoic semantics, whether they endorse it or not. Otherwise, they are misquoting.
1
However, the question of monotonicity is orthogonal to that. Any RDF file makes a set of statement, and entails every subset of these statements. .../...
2
2
I agree that a random RDF file found on the web should not in general be considered as a claim by whoevever "owns" that file (for some definition of "owns"). .../...
1