- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:42:04 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:38 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would be even stronger.
>
> Restricting triple terms to object position goes against most of the use cases
> that have been submitted to the community group and to the working group. So
> triple terms should be allowed in the subject position if they are allowed at all.
Do you mean that most of the use cases require, as subjects, triple
terms as the abstract types (in the abstract syntax) of the CG report?
And/or do you mean that they make use of, as subjects, a shorthand
syntax for whatever triple terms turn out to mean? Such as the syntax
of Andy's proposal [1], which turns this:
<< <s> <p> <o> >> :date "2023" .
into (something like):
[] rdfx:occurrenceOf << <s> <p> <o> >> ; :date "2023" .
Best regards,
Niklas
[1]: <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Dec/0080.html>
> peter
>
>
> On 12/20/23 02:49, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> > TL/DR: I'm against restricting triple terms to the object position (at least
> > in the "full" profile)
> >
> > More below.
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2023 22:42:37 UTC