Re: [IMPORTANT] Necessary revision of the sugar proposal

Hi Enrico,

On 23/01/2024 14:24, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> After a lot of thought, I believe that in order to pursue a “syntactic 
> sugar” proposal, we need to fix the original proposal (as documented 
> by pfps), as follows:
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Revision-of-the-sugar-proposal

If I was to summarize the changes you suggest, I would say that:
* you reject the first option under 
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md#syntax,

    and accept only the 2nd one (modulo the vocabulary)
* you restrict the definition of well-formed-ness to apply only to 
objects of rdf-star:is-reification-of

Would we agree on that?

IIUC, the motivation for restricting the definition of well-formed-ness 
is that
 > The notion of well-formedness does not impact reification-star-free 
RDF 1.1 graphs, and so it is fully backwards compatible.

I don't see a problem in deeming existing RDF graphs as ill-formed. 
That's the reason for well-formed-ness to be "optional".

   pa