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

On Jan 27, 2025, at 3:04 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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.

I understand that. But what we’ve ended up with is very different from what the CG report proposed. I’m wondering, given the availability of modeling with reifiers, if there are use-cases that need nesting. Especially if we’re going to encourage use of syntactic sugar constructs that don’t produce any nesting (presumably because modeling of real-world use-cases doesn’t need the nesting?), what is the value of the nesting?

Pierre-Antoine had said:

> 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.

If we believe that "most of the time, people would make statements about reifiers,” what are the cases in which they *wouldn’t* (or shouldn’t) use the reifier?

I’m not making any proposals or suggesting changes here, but I’d like to know if there are use cases at hand for this, or if maybe it’s a hold-over from the CG work that has become redundant with the introduction of reifiers.

thanks,
.greg