Re: Update RDF-star semantics document

What about saying?

"An RDF graph where the only triple terms are objects of triples having
type rdf:Statement with
predicate rdf:reifies."

That is to say, it satisfied the conditions:

{?s rdf:reifies ?o.
optional {
?o a rdf:Statement.
}}


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


On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:09 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/12/24 11:52, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> > Hi,
> > after our most recent discussions, I have updated the RDF-star semantics
> > document
> > <
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-semantics:-option-3
> > <
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-semantics:-option-3
> >>.
> > More specifically, I think it may be worthwhile to have some feedback on
> the
> > section “Best practices and well-formedness”.
> > cheers
> > —e.
>
> This is ambiguous as the nor can be given a wide scope.
>
> "An RDF graph which does not contain any triple term nor any rdf:reifies
> triple but for the ones coming from the expansion of the macro for triple
> reification is called reification well-formed."
>
> Better would be
>
> "An RDF graph where the only triple terms are objects of triples with
> predicate rdf:reifies."
>
> This is unambiguous, but more liberal as it allows objects of rdf:reifies
> triples to be anything.  I don't think that the liberalization causes any
> problems.
>
> peter
>
>
>