Re: AW: Triple-terms only as object of rdf:nameOf triples?

On 21/01/2024 11:12, 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?

Felix,

https://github.com/afs/rdf-star-notes/blob/main/reif-atoms.md

extends the syntax basic idea of keeping reification as a unit into 
N-triples.

     Andy

> 
> 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 Tuesday, 23 January 2024 17:30:09 UTC