- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 06:17:10 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
No, just the same as you can write RDF lists in N-Triples. Just write the triples that the new Turtle syntax expands to. peter On 1/21/24 06:12, Sasaki, Felix wrote: > What are the implications of this thread and the proposal at > > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md > <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md> > > That proposal says: > > “The proposal is to add a new syntactic construct to Turtle and also other > complex syntaxes for RDF (not including N-Triples, for example) for named > occurrences of triples.” > > So if I am a producer of n-triples, I would first need to convert them to > turtle to be able to use the proposal? > > Best, > > > Felix > > *Von: *Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> > *Datum: *Samstag, 20. Januar 2024 um 21:52 > *An: *public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org> > *Betreff: *Re: Triple-terms only as object of rdf:nameOf triples? > > > > Sie erhalten nicht oft eine E-Mail von andy@apache.org. Erfahren Sie, warum > dies wichtig ist <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > > > > On 19/01/2024 12:42, Souripriya Das wrote: > > Following up on the discussions in yesterday's meeting, I was thinking > that we could actually keep RDF1.2 as a "set of triples", instead of going > for "set of triples and set of edges", while keeping things simple by > imposing some restrictions on triple-terms and their use (in N-Triple) as > explained below. > > Equivalence: > > =========== > > As I noted in yesterday's meeting, the following two are just different > ways of expressing the same thing: > > :e | :s :p :o . # A) uses a > special 4th component --> "name" > > :e rdf:nameOf << :s :p :o >> . # B) has three components at > top-level, but uses a complex term, called "triple-term", as the object > > Yes. > > > Restrictions for Simplicity: > > ===================== > > We could go with option B (in N-Triple), but keep things simple by > imposing the following restrictions on triple-terms and their use: > > * No Nesting: None of the components of a triple-term can be a triple-term. > > * Only as Object: A triple-term can only appear in the object position. > > * Only in rdf:nameOf Triples: A triple-term can be used in only those > triples that have the special property rdf:nameOf as predicate. > > Mandating such restrictions (RFC 2119 "MUST NOT") is more complicated in the > spec, not less. And for users, if material has to explain enforceable > restrictions. > > We can recommend good usage (even RFC 2119 "SHOULD NOT") , and we have talked > about material in the primer. > > > Note that these restrictions do not constrain expressive power in any way > because we can always get a name (e.g., :e) for a triple-term from an > rdf:nameOf triple and we can use that name as as an ordinary term > (restricted to use as subject or object). > > Thanks, > > Souri. >
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2024 11:17:18 UTC