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

I have a question for clarification. I've noticed a shift to the notation:

<<(:s :p :o)>>

from

<< :s :p :o >>

Is there a distinction between the two, or simply a new syntax?


*Kurt Cagle*
Editor in Chief
The Cagle Report
kurt.cagle@gmail.com
443-837-8725 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B14438378725>


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:01 AM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
wrote:

> On 3 Apr 2024, at 18:56, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 8:19 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> My proposed alternative would surely capture the one-to-one cases, as I
> specified. LPG use cases are many-to-one, and my example above would not
> work for them, as you correctly point out.
> —e.
>
>