Re: rdf:reifies many-to-many vs. many-to-one

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 8:19 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> On 3 Apr 2024, at 15:22, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 02/04/2024 23:40, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>>> Just an obvious question: why use cases willing to refer 1-to-1 to a triple don't use directly the triple term as the referring term. I don’t see why you would need a reifier.
>> 
>> In "agreed syntax" there is the named occurrence and the triple term.
>> The only change to the RDF data model is adding the triple term.
>> Other uses of triples are not prohibited by the data model.
>> Hence different properties.
> 
> My question was different. Let me try to explain it better.
> Ora wrote: "While the primary use-case for reifications may be 1-1, …”.
> In these specific 1-1 cases, I believe that instead of:
> 
> :e rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
> :e :p1 :o1 .
> 
> you should write directly:
> 
>  <<( :s :p :o )>> :p1 :o1 .
> 
> since this implicitly implements a 1-1 relationship.

For LPG interop use-cases, we want to be able to uniquely identify occurrences of triples (edges). Your proposed alternative wouldn’t capture the same semantics, as it would be asserting properties of the triple term itself, not on a specific occurrence of that triple.

Thanks,
Greg