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

Thanks for the explanation.
*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 10:50 AM Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:43 AM, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> In the CG report, the << :s :p :o >> syntax was used for a quoted triple.
> Because of various issues with this, RDF 1.2 now uses <<( :s :p :o )>> for
> a Triple Term, which is intended to mostly be used as an implicit part of a
> “reifier”. A “reifier” has the same syntax is the CG version << :s :p :o >>
> and can have an optional identifier, << :id | :s :p :o >> which is
> effectively syntactic sugar for :id rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
>
> The state of RDF Concepts is in the middle of this transition, we haven’t
> even agreed on the name of a “reifier”, much less the semantics. N-Triples
> does not include the reifier syntactic sugar and only supports the use of
> Triple Terms directly.
>
> *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.
>>
>>
>