- From: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:19:12 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
> On 15. Feb 2024, at 16:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > The only real problem I see with option 1 is that it is easy to create Franken-reifications. For example > > > << :e | :s :p :o >> :x :y . > << :e | :s1 :p1 :o1 >> :x :y . > > The well-formedness condition to forbid this is not trivial > > Option 2 is designed to eliminate this problem. In option 2 well-formedness is easy to state and check. But why is it then that we have so much trouble agreeing on what the new node introduced in option 2 represents exactly? Even if formulating the well-formedness condition to forbid malformed reifications in option 1 is not trivial, it seems like the more promising approach to me. Also I do of course not understand wherein the non-triviality lies. Thomas > peter > > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2024 15:19:27 UTC