Re: [IMPORTANT] Necessary revision of the sugar proposal

On 23 Jan 2024, at 17:30, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:

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)

(I assume you refer to the “Option /  Syntax” section)
Somehow yes: my proposed expansion uses in addition explicit blank nodes, which are necessary to encode losslessly the named triples.
And I do not necessarily reject the first option, namely I may "allow << :e | :a :b :c >> by itself in concrete syntax” - this is an orthogonal issue.

* you restrict the definition of well-formed-ness to apply only to objects of rdf-star:is-reification-of

Sure, this would be enough.
Note that the well-formedness I require is not “restricted”: it is just exactly what it needs to be in order to guarantee losslessness.

Would we agree on that?

Modulo the above, yes.

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”.

No, the well-formedness I require is not “restricted”. It is just exactly what it needs to be to guarantee losslessness.
And it turns out to be fully backward compatible, since it involves only triples with rdf-star:is-reification-of.
The well-formedness should NOT be optional: indeed there will be NO ill-formed existing RDF graphs according to my definition of well-formedness.

—e.