- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 08:06:34 +0000
- To: William Van Woensel <william.vanwoensel@gmail.com>
- CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> On 5 Sep 2024, at 00:34, William Van Woensel <william.vanwoensel@gmail.com> wrote: > > But, in your custom reification, you can do what you want; e.g., you could have a single <tt> (for triple term) instance to represent an RDF 1.2 reification: > > <statement_1> rdf:reifies <<( <s> <p> <<( <x> <y> <z> )>> )>> . # RDF 1.2 reification > > <tt_x> a my:TripleTerm # custom reification > my:subject <s> ; > my:predicate <p> ; > my:object <tt_y> ; > my:reifier <statement_1> ; > my:reificationProperty rdf:reifies . > > <tt_y> a my:TripleTerm > my:subject <x> ; > my:predicate <y> ; > my:object <z> . > > Then you can have: > <statement_1> rdf:reifies <<( <a> <b> <c> )>> . > <statement_2> rdf:reifies <<( <s> <p> <<( <x> <y> <z> )>> )>> . > > With e.g., > <tt_z> a my: TripleTerm > my:subject <a> ; > my:predicate <b> ; > my:object <c> ; > my:reifier <statement_1> ; > my:reificationProperty rdf:reifies . > > Etc, without losing information, I think. > > In hindsight - this "custom reification" is starting to look pretty close to an abstract syntax tree of your RDF 1.2 statements… I completely agree with William’s analysis. In RDF-star, whenever you want to ‘structurally unpack’ a reification statement involving a triple term using something similar to classical reification, you have to inductively unpack all the triple terms appearing in the statement. —e.
Received on Monday, 9 September 2024 08:06:42 UTC