Re: [External] : Can a triple-term in an N-Triple 1.2 statement have "infinite" number of atomic terms?

In N-Triple 1.1 syntax, a statement consists of exactly three (atomic) terms and I am hoping that N-Triple 1.2 will be a simple extension that will allow 5-term statements as well, subject to the restriction that the predicate for such 5-term statements will always be rdf:reifies.

Thus, the following statement in Turtle 1.2:
    :s :believes << :s2 :believes << :s3 :p3 :o3 ~ :r3 >> ~ :r2 >> .
will be written in N-Triple 1.2 as follows:
    :s believes :r2 .
    :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :s2 :believes :r3 )>> .
    :r3 rdf:reifies <<( :s3 :p3 :o3 )>> .

Is this aligned with the current thinking in the WG?

Thanks,
Souri.
________________________________
From: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 11:59 AM
To: RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [External] : Can a triple-term in an N-Triple 1.2 statement have "infinite" number of atomic terms?

Would the following be a valid N-Triple 1.2 statement, where n can be, say, 1000?
(There will be a total of 2*1000 + 1 = 2001 "atomic" terms in the triple-term used as the object.)

    :s :p <<( :s1 :p1 <<( :s2 :p2 <<( ... <<(  :sn :pn :on )>> )>> )>> )>> .

Thanks,
Souri.