- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 06:20:23 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
The response below is for the current state of the proposal at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md The situation for other proposals may be different. peter On 1/21/24 06:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 11:20:30 UTC