- From: Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:47:30 +0000
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> Am 13.03.2024 um 15:33 schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>: > > > >> On 13 Mar 2024, at 13:57, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de> wrote: >> >> P.S. Your latest solution is in my opinion indeed too radical. (But I already started to create tricky examples if you want to go there ;) ) > > Can you elaborate on that? > After all, all the attempts to understand and fix the well-formedness in its various implications, are a consequence of the fact that we want to have (or better, we want to explain) only triple reification terms, and not triple terms. > So, my proposal is to just to have directly only triple reification terms, and all the issues disappear magically… > —e. > I simply misread your proposal, sorry for that. I now agree and actually like the idea. We could also simply give up the macro. But I somehow have the feeling that others will be less happy with that … Kind regards, Dörthe
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2024 14:47:37 UTC