Re: Triple terms in subject position

Dear Colby,

On 03/07/2025 18:13, Colby Russell wrote:
> Simple solution: recognize that reified triples belong to purview of
> literals--i.e., they _are_ literals.  (Literally.  That's _exactly_ what
> they are--and always have been--or *should* have been, at least...)

I sympathize with this position, and I would have advocated for it if we 
dealt only with ground 
<https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#dfn-ground> triple terms.

Unfortunately, triples (and therefore triple terms) can contain blank nodes,
and this prevents us from considering arbitrary triple terms as literals.

   best

>
> Instead of accommodating reification through special syntax, they need
> only a standard datatype to tag them appropriately.
>
> The correct disposition for this issue follows straightforwardly from
> this--an example where the relationship between policy and mechanism is
> policy from mechanism--since literals can only appear in the object
> position, then any given reified triple, being that which is expressed
> as a literal, must also.  (At least for as long as RDF imposes this
> constraint on literals of any type--a decision which may need to be
> revisited.)
>
> Have fun.
>