Re: Radical change proposal

If I say that

:x rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>>

actually *is* a “triple reification” (in your BNF), what am I missing?

Ora

--
Dr. Ora Lassila
Principal Technologist, Amazon Neptune



From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 7:38 AM
To: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Radical change proposal
Resent-From: <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 7:37 AM


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


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?
—e.