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

On 27/01/2025 11:36, Souripriya Das wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> >> That's the N-Triples that I'm getting for that Turtle example.
> It does not have a nested triple term.
>
> That's good but just to be sure, let me tweak the Turtle 1.2 statement 
> a bit to avoid the use of explicit reifiers.
>
> Would the following statement in Turtle 1.2:
>     :s :believes << :s2 :believes << :s3 :p3 :o3 >>  >> .
> be a valid statement in N-Triples 1.2 as well?
No, because the '<< ... >>' construct (reification) is only part of 
Turtle, not of N-Triples.
Not ot be confused with the '<<( ... )>>' construct (triple terms), 
which is also part of N-Triples.

And yes, recursive triple terms are possible, e.g.


   _:b1 rdf:reifies <<( _:b2 rdf:reifies <<( <tag:s> <tag:p> <tag:o> )>> 
)>> .


This is valid N-Triples, and contains 1 (asserted) triple.


   best


>
> Or, would it always require use of multiple statements in N-Triples, 
> something like the following?
>     :s believes _:b2 .
>     _:b2 rdf:reifies <<( :s2 :believes _:b3 )>> .
>     _:b3 rdf:reifies <<( :s3 :p3 :o3 )>> .
> Thanks,
> Souri.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2025 7:09 AM
> *To:* public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [External] : Can a triple-term in an N-Triple 1.2 
> statement have "infinite" number of atomic terms?
>
>
>
> On 24/01/2025 17:31, Souripriya Das wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That's the N-Triples that I'm getting for that Turtle example.
> It does not have a nested triple term.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Souri.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com> 
>> <mailto:souripriya.das@oracle.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2025 11:59 AM
>> *To:* RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org> 
>> <mailto: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 )>> )>> 
>> )>> )>> .
>
> The RDF Abstract Syntax allows it and N-triples has concrete syntax 
> for it.
> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-triples 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/*section-triples__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!JYEvlde5NuL_h5csMvH6AwkIwDQ-0an7pS64QPbyPujF1z1Hq5zPtm0_FQrFPc5jqgNd1kTb5R4zo_5x$>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-triple-terms 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/*section-triple-terms__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!JYEvlde5NuL_h5csMvH6AwkIwDQ-0an7pS64QPbyPujF1z1Hq5zPtm0_FQrFPc5jqgNd1kTb5XDNa7h2$> 
> (2nd point)
>
> Personally, I think nesting in triple terms will not be common, and 
> many levels very, very uncommon.
> But the ability to create triple terms for any triple data does lead 
> to providing for nesting.
>
>     Andy
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Souri.
>>
>