- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:25:23 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 28/02/2024 18:36, Franconi Enrico wrote: >> On 28 Feb 2024, at 17:09, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: ... >> A graph written in Turtle only using occurrence and annotation syntax >> will be "reification well-formed" but the definition isn't tied to the >> macros. It is having triple terms only in the object position of >> rdf:nameOf and that can be applied to a N-triples. > > I have shown that these two ways to look at "reification > well-formedness” are equivalent, according to my definitions. > Note that, as I have shown in the “upfront restricted abstract syntax”, > well-formedness is more than what you said above. > >> The macros do not allow a graph of just an occurrence because macros >> require that the occurrence be used somewhere. The "reification >> well-formed" condition does not. That is, a graph that is all >> "occurrences" (edges) does not fit the macros. > > *My* definition of reification well-formedness corresponds (as I > strongly believe) to the usage of occurrences in triples, so in my case > what you are saying is not true. And if you check the “upfront > restricted abstract syntax” you can see that. The two ways aren't equivalent. This is how I'm reading the "Best practice" section which defines the macro and defines "reification well-formed" (RWF). "We introduce a macro for triple occurrences" and "tripleOccurence" is allowed as a subject or object of a triple so there must be X3 and X4 to complete a triple. This is shown in the expansion. The definition of "reification well-formed" is based on the macro: """ An RDF graph which does not contain any triple term nor any rdf:nameOf triple but for the ones coming from the expansion of the macro for triple occurrences is called reification well-formed. """ The graph identifier rdf:nameOf triple . comes under the "graph ::=" of the Upfront Abstract Syntax. It seems that RWF """ Any graph conforming the upfront restricted abstract syntax is always reification well-formed. """ intends to cover the graph above as well. graph ::= ( triple | tripleOccurrence | ...)* and the expansion is ( identifier triple ) . ➡️ identifier rdf:nameOf triple . Andy
Received on Thursday, 29 February 2024 11:25:30 UTC