> On Jan 27, 2025, at 9:49 AM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote: > > 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? Indefinite nesting of Triple Terms (/Quoted Triples) has been part of RDF-star since Olaf’s original submittal and was carried through in CG report. It seems a bit late in the game to be re-visiting such a core concept. For testing, I believe we use at most two levels of triple terms, and IMO, it’s reasonable for implementation to put some limit on this, just as they do on literal length. We might add something to indicate that imputations may limit the depth of nested triple terms. Also, this is another reason to encourage the use of the Reifying Triple semantic sugar, as it doesn’t requre any deep nesting. Gregg > thanks, > .greg >
Received on Monday, 27 January 2025 23:04:27 UTC