- 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