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

Thank you for the explanations and clarifications, Andy and all.


  *   Felix

Von: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Datum: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2024 um 18:30
An: Sasaki, Felix <felix.sasaki@sap.com>, public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Betreff: Re: AW: Triple-terms only as object of rdf:nameOf triples?
[Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von andy@apache.org. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

On 21/01/2024 11:12, Sasaki, Felix wrote:
> What are the implications of this thread and the proposal at
>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Frdf-star-wg%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Fdocs%2Fsugar-proposal.md&data=05%7C02%7Cfelix.sasaki%40sap.com%7C41f295ae8a92412796a508dc1c38ef52%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C638416278053173322%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MfvgQD8B2A%2FYVjxTkqb8sePJJZIIw4k6IY7dIZVY4XA%3D&reserved=0<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md>
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Frdf-star-wg%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Fdocs%2Fsugar-proposal.md&data=05%7C02%7Cfelix.sasaki%40sap.com%7C41f295ae8a92412796a508dc1c38ef52%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C638416278053180957%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X4OQ8wiLdHVdFAu6P9ux59VmLvEsEL6piMxOHsFwMxI%3D&reserved=0<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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fafs%2Frdf-star-notes%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Freif-atoms.md&data=05%7C02%7Cfelix.sasaki%40sap.com%7C41f295ae8a92412796a508dc1c38ef52%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C638416278053186494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q4A3jDf3UPMXNsn%2B2o6K7GhV1eKfCiAcpOoIoLewffU%3D&reserved=0<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.
>