Re: rdf:note proposal

Hi Kurt

<<:s :p :o>> rdf:note [
:says :Nico ;
:date "01.01.2024" ;
] .
<<:s :p :o>> rdf:note [
:says :Kurt;
:date "01.03.2024" ;
] .

It depends on what you really want to express.
Let’s see how many different “things” (i.e., resources) there may possibly be around here.
There is the thing said by Nico and the thing said by Kurt (in the domain of :says and range of your rdf:note).
Those things said by the guys may be either about (the domain of your rdf:note) the abstract notion of the <<:s :p :o>> triple (which would be the same across every occurrence of that triple anywhere in any graph), or those things may be about specific occurrences of the <<:s :p :o>> triple, where these occurrences may be different depending on whether they appear in a graph, in which place within the graph, at a certain time, etc.
Currently, we call “triple term” the former abstract notion of the triple, and “triple reification” the latter occurrence of the triple.
A “triple reification” (currently written as << :id | :s :p :o >>) has always associated an identifier (a IRI or a bnode), which can be used elsewhere to refer to that occurrence.
On the other hand, a “triple term” (written as << :s :p :o >>) is always identified by itself.
So, depending on what you really want to express, you can use as the subject of your rdf:note a triple term or a triple reification.

I hope I’m covering the current status of the discussion within the group correctly…

cheers
—e.