Re: Support for reified sets

Hi Enrico,

On 18/04/2024 00:00, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> The predicate rdf:reifies is meant to talk about reifications, not 
> about naming graphs. So, yes, it induces a set of the triple terms 
> reified by the reifier: so what?
fully agreed; see also my counter argument in 
https://www.w3.org/mid/d39fcb64-66d6-4cbe-9453-a52d1cbd5259@w3.org .
> By the way, this set of triple terms is not a graph for several reasons I already mentioned several times. One is that a RDF graph defines the boundary of the scope of bnodes, while here bnodes are bound outside the set of triple terms (because they are transparent).

... but I don't think I agree with your last argument above.

First, the notion of scope is defined for bnode /identifiers/, not for 
bnodes.
Because of this, this notion of scope belongs to concrete**syntaxes, 
while the notion of graph belongs to the abstract syntax. Apples and 
oranges.
Finally, even if we ignore the point above, in TriG, the scope of bnode 
identifiers is the whole document, so it spans multiple graphs. 
Conversely, if I consider two overlapping subgraphs of a given graph, 
they might share blank nodes.

But again, despite this disagreement, I agree with your overall point: 
rdf:reifies + multiple objects is not a good way to model graphs.

   pa

> —e.