Re: [External] : Re: RDF is a framework, not a vocabulary

Why shouldn't it? If I have a triple in one graph and a triple in another,
then any reification mechanism should reasonably be able to differentiate
these. In most cases, the rdf:g statement would "default" to the default
graph, if that was in the configuration settings. Keep in mind, that if I
say:

_:b1 rdf:subject  :s ;
         rdf:predicate :p ;
         rdf:object :o  ;
#         rdf:graph :g  ;
         .

_:b2 rdf:subject  :s ;
         rdf:predicate :p ;
         rdf:object :o  ;
#         rdf:graph :g  ;
         .  .

This is perfectly valid if you define a reification structurally, because
it is an annotational pattern, not a triple - it isn't necessarily in the
graph. (same holds for :g1 and :g2).

I know a lot of people in this WG don't like graphs, but they are part of
the RDF family of specifications, and we have to look for a solution that
allows for graphs for the sake of completeness. Named node expressions are
one way to do this without getting into thorny cardinality issues.




*Kurt Cagle*
Editor in Chief
The Cagle Report
kurt.cagle@gmail.com
443-837-8725 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B14438378725>


On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 1:30 PM James Anderson <
anderson.james.1955@gmail.com> wrote:

> when did the chartered task evolve to include reifying quads?
>
> > On 12. Jul 2024, at 16:22, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to continue the discussion I made this last Thursday.
> >
> > A reification is the definition of an anonymous node of the form:
> >
> > (1) [ rdf:subject :s ; rdf:predicate :p ;  rdf:object :o ; rdf:graph :g ]
> >
> > Which can be expanded as:
> >
> > (2) _:b1 rdf:subject  :s ;
> >          rdf:predicate :p ;
> >          rdf:object :o ;
> >          rdf:graph :g ;
> >
>
> ...
> ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
>
>
>
>