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

On Jan 27, 2025, at 7:44 AM, Souripriya Das <SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Pierr-Antoine wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> My concern is whether we are putting too much complexity into RDF1.2 to support rare situations and thereby creating potential for interoperability issues.

I share this concern (especially from an implementation perspective). I don’t recall when we decided to allow this unbounded nesting, though I do seem to recall early discussions about whether we’d need that at all or whether nesting by way of reifiers would suffice. Do we have use-cases where the actual nesting of triple terms is important?


thanks,
.greg