Re: [rdf12-schema] rdf:Statement vs rdf:reifies

Dear Pierre,

Thank you for raising this question! The group hasn't addressed this
yet, but I am hopeful that we will be able to explain the relationship
between a "classic" reification, triple terms, and reifiers thereof.

I've created a tracking issue for this: [1].

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61>



On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 6:49 AM Pierre Gronlier <Pierre.Gronlier@gaia-x.eu>
wrote:

> Dear,
>
>
>
> About reification vocabularies, I’m a bit confused about the 2 reification
> vocabularies:
>
>    - (RDF-Schema 1.1 or RDF-Schema 1.2) and rdf:Statement
>    <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-schema/#ch_reificationvocab>.
>    - RDF 1.2 Concept and rdf:reifies
>    <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-triple-terms-reification>
>    .
>
> Do I understand correctly that both rdf:Statement and rdf:reifies are
> equivalent and can be used with asserted and unasserted triples ?
>
>
>
> And if a reification is done on an unasserted triple, what is the
> difference with RDF*, which is not syntactic sugar
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#common-misconceptions> for
> reification, on a quoted triple ?
>
> Both quoted triple
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#quoted-triples> and an un
> asserted <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#dfn-asserted-triple>
> triple seem to be defined as a triple not being an element of the RDF Graph.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre
>