Re: Consolidating triple/edges -- named occurrence version

My takeaway from today’s conversation makes a triple occurrence such as << wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >> be more like syntactic sugar for :wed-1 rdf:occurrenceOf << :liz :spouse :richard >> (where << :liz :spouse :richard >> is a triple term not occurrence). Furthermore, the semantics could impose a restriction that a triple term can only be used as the object of a triple with predicate rdf:occurrenceOf, otherwise it is considered invalid.

If this is the case, then a triple occurrence syntax is really a syntactic sugar not strictly necessary in the Abstract Grammar, so what is in RDF Concepts now gets us partway there and we need to add some additional restrictions. While I think Concepts needs to clarify the difference between triple terms and occurrences, I don’t see that the Abstract Syntax needs both. Serializing this in a Concrete Syntax may discourage the use of triple terms in favor of occurrences.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net