- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:43:50 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 06/06/2024 13:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I have three concerns with this as a baseline.
>
> First, it is complex, with two different kinds of triple terms. I think
> that the baseline should be a simple extension that meets the
> requirements of most of the use cases.
My understanding of a recent SemTF call is that it is design choice as
to whether to have one kind of triple term or two in the abstract syntax
at least.
In the baseline doc:
tripleTerm ::= transparentTripleTerm | opaqueTripleTerm
It is the use with rdf:reifies or rdf:hasAnnotation that leads to
transparent or opaque.
Andy
> Second, opaque triple terms are completely opaque, with blank nodes
> treated just like IRIs. Although there is a use case that requires
> opaque blank nodes I don't see how opaque blank nodes are suitable for
> use cases like annotations or provenance.
>
> Third, there does not appear to be any connection between transparent
> and opaque triple terms.
>
> peter
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2024 12:43:57 UTC