Re: The way forward

On 3 May 2024, at 01:55, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
Similarly, the RDF graph
:r rdf:reifies << :a :b :c >> .
:r rdf:reifies << :d :e :f >> .
does not say that :r reifies a collection (or set) of two quoted triples.  It instead that there are two quoted triples that :r reifies.
And so
<< :r | :a :b :c >> :x :y .
<< :r | :d :e :f >> :x :y .
should  not say that :r reifies a collection (or set) of two quoted triples or even an RDF graph.  Instead there are two quoted triples that :r reifies, and nothing else should be read into it.

At this point I’m not sure what we’re even doing. If “nothing else should be read into it,” and this is just making statements about :r, where does that leave us with respect to our chartered purpose of being able to make “statements about statements”?

While I don't get your latest question, let me try to make this example.

:x :refers-to-a-graph-which-does-not-contain-the-triple <<:a :b :c>>.
:x :refers-to-a-graph-which-does-not-contain-the-triple <<:d :e :f>>.

:y :refers-to-a-graph-which-contains-the-triple <<:a :b :c>>.
:y :refers-to-a-graph-which-contains-the-triple <<:d :e :f>>.

Does :x refer to a graph with the triples a :b :c. and :d :e :f. ?
Probably your answer would be NO, since you read something behind the predicate name.
Does :y refer to a graph with the triples a :b :c. and :d :e :f. ?
Probably your answer would be YES, since you read something behind the predicate name.
Well, similarly with rdf:reifies you should not read that it induces the existence of a graph.

--e.