- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:27:44 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Jul 2024, at 13:41, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes, but the discussion was closed by accepting the fact that rdf:reifies should NOT be functional. —e.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 13:27:51 UTC