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

On 27/01/2025 13:01, Souripriya Das wrote:
> So, in short, N-Triples 1.2 will allow potentially "infinite"-length 
> statements, including ones like the following:
>
>     :s1 :p1 <<( :s2 :p2  ... <<( :sN :pN  :oN )>>  ... )>> .

I would rather say "unbounded" (triple terms, even nested, are always 
finite), but yes.

Note however that this is an extreme corner case, since most of the 
time, people would make statements about reifiers rather than about 
triple terms themselves.


Note that in theory, literals in N-Triples (and in RDF abstract syntax) 
are also unbounded; same for IRIs. Yet, I assume that all 
implementations have limits on the size of the IRIs and literals they 
can accept. So I would not be surprised or concerned if implementations 
also had limits on the depth of nesting that they accept...

>
> Such a statement in N-Triples 1.2 will contain 2N+1 "atomic" RDF 1.1, 
> possibly unique, terms in a single line (i.e., ending with EOL).
>
> Please confirm.
>
> Thanks,
> Souri.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2025 6:29 AM
> *To:* Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>; Andy Seaborne 
> <andy@apache.org>; 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 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> <mailto:andy@apache.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2025 7:09 AM
>> *To:* public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org> 
>> <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org> <mailto: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.
>>>
>>