- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:50:57 -0500
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Cc: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 1/23/24 06:30, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > > >> On 23. Jan 2024, at 12:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> [..] >> >> What the proposal does talk about is RDF reifications, nodes in an RDF graph that are subjects of rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, or rdf:object triples. The well-formedness requirement states that an RDF graph is ill-formed if it has a node that is the subject of a triple with any of these predicates and is not the subject of exactly > > Shouldn’t this be changed to *at least*? See my prior mail in response to Dörthe. > >> one triple with each of these predicates. No bijection between triples and anything is either mentioned or implied. The notion of well-formedness is completely syntactic. [...] The proposal is *exactly*. Changing to *at least* could make it harder to optimize RDF reifications in implementations. As far as I can tell, multiple subjects, predicates, or objects is more difficult to optimize than missing subjects, predicates, or objects, but I haven't implemented an RDF triple store that optimizes RDF reifications. peter
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2024 11:51:04 UTC