Re: Radical change proposal

Enrico,

tripleReification is the same as the "tripleTerm" in 
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-semantics:-option-3#abstract-syntax?

If the suggestion is keeping triple terms and the Turtle syntax forms, 
then well-formedness arises in the account of named occurrences and 
using rdf:refies as a macro.

The general semantics remains the same.

https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-semantics:-option-3#semantics

is that correct?

     Andy


https://github.com/afs/rdf-star-notes/blob/main/reif-atoms-interpret.md

On 13/03/2024 11:37, Franconi Enrico 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?
> —e.
>
>
>
>