Holger Knublauch

Difficult question. I like @rubensworks comment on feature detection above. Quite possibly this would be a requirement before RDF 2 and similar updates can happen. APIs and tools can then...

I don't think there is a standard or working group on this harmonisation ATM. The mapping that we use is described in https://www.topquadrant.com/technology/graphql/

I noticed that parsing RDF lists (with Turtle) produces a Collection node, which then does not comply to standard RDF when queried via statementsMatching. I believe there should be at...

On https://github.com/stardog-union/stardog-examples/blob/develop/examples/api/data/music_shacl.ttl sh:Shape shouldn't be instantiated directly - I guess you meant sh:NodeShape? FWIW, as a naming convention for property shapes we try to use NodeShapeURI-localNameOfProperty, so for example ex:AlbumShape-date...

Yes there is some overlap with #21. For many of the customers that we see, the concept of Linked Data is not relevant as they only operate on controlled enterprise...

@namedgraph: I believe one goal of an EasierRDF project is to align better with what most software people are used to. Backward compatibility is desirable but by definition difficult to...

@namedgraph For how many years has the RDF community already tried to convert everyone else, with little success. 20 years now? It remains a niche technology. Maybe success is just...

Hypothetical syntax that only uses strings in predicate position, while bringing in existing namespace-based predicates: @prefix rdf: . @prefix rdfs: . @prefix ex: . @alias a: rdf:type . @alias label:...

@HughGlaser not aside at all but important. Like in OWL and SHACL, a property would have its meaning in the context of a class or shape. So in this case,...

@dbooth-boston The problem of type clashes already exists, for example if you have two rdf:types with two owl:Classes that carry owl:Restrictions with different owl:allValuesFrom on the same property. In SHACL...