- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:19:25 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- CC: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> On 29 Feb 2024, at 12:25, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > 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 . You are indeed right, we need an even stronger (and more complex) version of Upfront Abstract Syntax. Which makes my argument of NOT having an upfront abstract syntax defining the well-formedness even stronger… IMHO we should introduce well-formedness as any graph coming from the expansion of the macro (which is clearly understandable by users due to all the use cases we will show in the best practices section) - of course without independent use of rdf:nameOf and tripleTerms. —e.
Received on Thursday, 29 February 2024 13:19:32 UTC