The rationale of well-formed-ness (Re: [IMPORTANT] Necessary revision of the sugar proposal)

Hi Enrico,

On 23/01/2024 17:49, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> The well-formedness should NOT be optional: indeed there will be NO 
> ill-formed existing RDF graphs according to my definition of 
> well-formedness.
The very concept of "well-formed-ness" is meant to be optional. From the 
"sugar proposal" [1]

 > Systems would not be required to detect or reject ill-formed RDF, but 
they would not be required to accept it either.

Apparently, you consider that such a notion of "soft" constraint is a 
bad idea. Fair enough. But then could we please call hard constraints a 
different name? In fact, do we need a name for them? They just become 
part of the abstract syntax...

In fact, if we need to add something to the abstract syntax, I think the 
two options that were discussed last week ("triple terms" of "edge 
statements") are much more elegant than constraining the use of a bunch 
of predicates... But maybe that's what you are getting at? :->

NB: I have ideas for (possibly) better names for "well-formed-ness", if 
the term is deemed misleading. But I don't want to derail the 
conversation with bikeshedding.


[1] 
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md#criticisms-and-responses


>
> —e.