- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:41:12 -0400
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 7/10/24 04:29, Franconi Enrico wrote: > > >> On 9 Jul 2024, at 17:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> A big problem (and one reason that I don't totally believe this proposal) is >> using the same IRI or blank node for multiple triple occurrences as in >> <:x< :a :b :c >> :d :e . >> <:x< :f :g :h >> :d :e . >> has to be handled by either forbidding it or allowing a node to have >> multiple triple occurrences. > > Ok, groundhog day every week: I thought we accepted once and for all the fact > that we *should* allow a node to have multiple triple occurrences, as per > baseline > <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22minimal-baseline%22>, in > order to capture important /use cases/ (not capitalised). > —e. Recent WG discussions have been about whether a relationship like rdf:reifies should be functional or not, i.e., whether a single node can be related to multiple triples via rdf:reifies. This proposal concerns changing the nature of RDF nodes themselves to incorporate a triple as part of the node. The issue is then whether this triple part is a single triple or multiple triples. pete
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 11:41:18 UTC