Re: [External] : Re: new proposal

The following type of nesting allows reifying the association between a reifier and what it reifies:
        :r2 rdf:reifies  <<( :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> )>> .
Here the nesting is: "rdf;reifies -> rdf:reifies" (i.e., in the ordering of predicates, rdf:reifies immediately follows another rdf:reifies).

Nested beliefs are different than above and can be expressed as follows:
Using 4th component as the reifier:
        :s :p :o :r1 .
        :bob :believes :r1 :r2 .
        :alice :believes :r2 .
The same can be expressed using rdf:reifies as follows:
        :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :earth :hasShape :cube )>> .
        :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :bob :believes :r1 )>> .
        :alice :believes :r2 .
Here the nesting is ":believes -> rdf:reifies -> :believes -> rdf:reifies" -> :hasShape . Specifically, an rdf:reifies never immediately follows another rdf:reifies.

I strongly believe that "rdf:reifies -> rdf:reifies" kind of nesting is of little practical value.

Thanks,
Souri.

________________________________
From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 6:10 AM
To: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
Cc: RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [External] : Re: new proposal



On 1 Jul 2024, at 10:03, Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com> wrote:

A reified triple is 1) opaque, if reifier (shown as the fourth component below) is a blank node, and 2) transparent, if reifier is an IRI

What’s the rationale behind this?

This proposal will not support nesting of reifications like the one shown below. My sense is that this type of nesting, that allows reification of a reification and so on, is not needed in practice.

Nested beliefs are examples of the need of nesting. But, on the other hand, why restrict the syntax? Are nested reifications hurting something? Simple entailment and SPARQL BGPs would still be based on simple matching.

cheers
—e.