Re: [External] : Conclusions from today's Semantics TF

> Moreover, we discussed restricting the usage of nested triple terms, by looking at approximations involving only non-nested triple terms.


Conclusion 2: We feel that this would be depending too much on the use cases. A rewriting of nested triple terms using owl:sameas would be always possible, but beyond RDF. Further discussion will be needed in the WG, specifically involving Souri, who has arguments in favour of such approximations.

Regarding avoiding nested triple terms, I have posted my latest thoughts here<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/155#issuecomment-2798861705> (under issue 155<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/155>).

[https://opengraph.githubassets.com/a041a3cf007e9929189cccc549ce0c3d2a95aa4e54152d388d171ef8b7264028/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/155]<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/155>
Would compliance require support for countably infinite recursion in a triple-term? · Issue #155 · w3c/rdf-star-wg<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/155>
For compliance, would an implementation be required to accept the following N-Triple statement as a line in a .nt file? :s :p <<( :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :r3 rdf:reifies ... <<( :rn...
github.com
Thanks,
Souri.




________________________________
From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 11:22 AM
To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [External] : Conclusions from today's Semantics TF


We discussed issue #127<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Iu2av6sMN8Qfkwe2IJXMYVMS5-l1iHB9PjBGdpxtw272UTsJRwhcOsMBF6-R-JU7cxWWjD4KJGW1Cbdvong-MHwnHg$> at the Semantics TF<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/2025/04/11-rdf-star-minutes.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Iu2av6sMN8Qfkwe2IJXMYVMS5-l1iHB9PjBGdpxtw272UTsJRwhcOsMBF6-R-JU7cxWWjD4KJGW1CbdvonguwGzLCQ$> and we reached this conclusion:

Conclusion 1: we discussed about restricting (or suggesting to restrict) the usage of triple terms only as object of rdf:reifies, but we believe that their usage should be unrestricted.

This conclusion will be brought forward for discussion in the WG.


Moreover, we discussed restricting the usage of nested triple terms, by looking at approximations involving only non-nested triple terms.


Conclusion 2: We feel that this would be depending too much on the use cases. A rewriting of nested triple terms using owl:sameas would be always possible, but beyond RDF. Further discussion will be needed in the WG, specifically involving Souri, who has arguments in favour of such approximations.