Re: a modest proposal - eliminate reifiers completely

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 2:57 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that the WG is at an impasse.

I think we're "just" not in agreement about whether the cardinality of
rdf:reifies should conceptually be one or many. Some claim it makes
sense, others claim that it deviates from the notion of a reified
statement, taken as a "direct relationship instance" (which I presume
is what an LPG edge is taken to "denote" in the OneGraph
harmonization).

It is an important question, since the motivation is to not add
something which is then unnecessarily (or by default) used in
nonsensical ways, or opens up for accidental complexity. This avoids
necessary remodeling if new details crop up, and/or B) integration
with data from other sources.

> How about reverting to an old situation where there are no reifiers at all,
> just quoted triples, and require users to stand off from the triple as required?

That depends on whether or not the syntaxes allow them (or worse,
encourage them) to be used as subjects (opening up for the seminal
error). We came to the proposal of only using them with reifiers since
that's when they work with use cases as-is. I.e., we have agreed that
this (talking about bare triple terms) is not what use cases call for
(not the least of which are the Amazon Neptune use cases with multiple
edges [1]), and makes no sense if used as is in all but the most
model-theoretical domains of discourse (including for token
provenance; the most obvious kind of occurrences-not-types).

/Niklas

[1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Dec/att-0001/rdf-star-neptune-use-cases-20211202.pdf


> peter
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 12 April 2024 14:00:56 UTC