Re: weakness of embedded triples

good afternoon;

> On 2020-10-23, at 13:58:07, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
> 
> Hoger,
> 
> On 23/10/2020 00:48, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> (...)
>>> That's why we need to have an extended semantics for RDF*.
>> 
>> Not necessarily. I still think this can be solved by simply declaring
>> reification on bnode triples to be unsupported.
>> 
>> Yes there are theoretically some scenarios where this might be useful,
>> but I'd rather say "if you want to use RDF*, use IRIs and no bnodes"
>> than having to extend the very core model of RDF just for this corner
>> case.
> 
> Whether this is a corner case or not remains to be discussed, IMO.
> 
> Would you mind creating an issue on github with this proposal; we can
> have a quick +1 / -1 poll on that issue, and see what the community
> thinks…

should that happen, please take case to distinguish structural from semantic nodes.
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com

Received on Friday, 23 October 2020 12:43:36 UTC