Github user hartig commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/299
Thanks @mschroeder-github for taking the initiative of writing an RDF*
parser for Jena!
@afs Before responding to some of your comments, I should mentioned that I
am still actively working on RDF* and SPARQL* even if I am having hardly any
time for writing code in my new position. Anyways, I have recently published [a
paper with formal results about
RDF*/SPARQL*](http://olafhartig.de/files/Hartig_AMW2017_RDFStar.pdf).
Additionally, two weeks ago I presented the approach as a poster in ISWC 2017
and won the "peoples' choice best poster award" for it. Now, to your comments:
You are right, an RDF* graph is not an RDF graph, but it can be transformed
into an RDF graph (by applying the RDF reification vocabulary or some other
pure-RDF approach such as singleton properties or single-triple named graphs).
The aforementioned paper provides the formal mappings for such transformations
and shows that these mappings have desirable properties (they are information
preserving and query result preserving).
However, you are not right when you write that "RDF* has the notion of a
triple id." There is no such notion in RDF* (unless you consider the triples
themselves as triple identifiers).
Regarding your example that you introduce when you write about merging, you
are right: these are two RDF* triples that have the same subject and this
subject happens to be the triple (`:s`,`:p`,`:o`).
In your comment related to SPARQL you write that the `<< >>` syntax has
been discussed in the SPARQL WG. Was this discussion related to reification or
was the idea of the `<< >>` syntax in this discussion for something else?
In general, I understand your response to this PR as a positive attitude
towards supporting RDF* syntax (and SPARQL* syntax?) in Jena, plus a suggestion
to implement this support as part of RIOT instead of the jena-core Turtle
parser. Correct?
---
