- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:01:04 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
good afternoon;
> On 13. Mar 2024, at 12:37, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>
> All the problems and discussions about well-formedness, forbidden simple entailments, unsupported RDF 1.2 graphs, etc, will vanish if we give up option 3 and we go back to have only triple reification terms in RDF 1.2:
>
> graph ::= (triple)*
> triple ::= subject predicate object
> subject ::= iri | BlankNode | tripleReification
> predicate ::= iri
> object ::= iri | BlankNode | literal | tripleReification
> tripleReification ::= identifier triple
> identifier ::= iri | blanknode
>
> Too radical?
no it is not too radical.
except, that, from the perspective of a sparql implementation, if graphs are to be used, their abstract form needs to be
graph ::= identifier triple*
in which case, the difference to a tripleReification is just the size of the triple set.
what of your proposal does this perspective misunderstand?
best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2024 13:01:22 UTC