Re: graph terms vs nested triples

On 21/12/2023 19:04, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> To poke a bit it the perceived impossibility of graph terms:
Assuming that this questions is aimed (at least in part) at me 
(following my concluding remark from yesterday):

I'm not saying that graph terms are impossible. I've been involved in 
the Notation 3 Community Group (although less so recently), and working 
on a proposed semantics for graph terms.

Graph terms are definitely something possible, and IMO a great idea.
However, I'm not sure that they are ripe for standardisation just yet
(judging from some reactions in the WG, and more generally on their 
adoption of lack thereof in the wild).

> what is the difference between a nested triple term, e.g.
>
>      << << :a :b :c >> :d :e >>
>
> and a graph term? How is it categorically different from e.g.
>
>      << :a :b :c .
>         :x :d :e >>
>
> ?

AFAICT, there are (at least) two kinds of concerns about graph terms:

* they add "structural" complexity to the abstract syntax ;
   the people with this concern are equally concerned about "nestable" 
triple terms (e.g. Niklas, Souri, if I am not mistaken)

* they add "usability" complexity, as different people with different 
use cases may have different expectations about how graph terms behave 
with inference/querying. See the excellent examples that Peter put in 
his slides [1], pages 4-9.

[1] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/att-0108/work.pdf


   pa

>
> Or at least different enough that the former was for a decade by and large considered unproblematic (modulo concerns w.r.t. computational complexity) whereas the latter raises all kinds of vague concerns?
meta-remark: you're doing it again, please refrain...

>
>
> Best,
> Thomas