Atomic reification

Points discussed about N-triples in the last two meetings e.g. [1], [2] 
meant I understood "atomic reification" differently.

https://github.com/afs/rdf-star-notes/blob/main/reif-atoms.md

"well-formed" gives some grouping but that is lost in N-triples. The 
test for it is expensive [3].


To flesh out the problems with RDF 1.1 reification:

1. Visually verbose (Turtle).
2. Verbose number of triples (N-Triples).
3. The reification triples may be spread across parts of a document.
    This breaks visual proximity as written.
4. Over-specificed reifications (e.g. multiple rdf:subject)
5. Under-specificed reifications (e.g. no rdf:subject)
6. Presence or absence of rdf:Statement is unclear leading to
    different SPARQL results. (De facto, it is omitted.)
7. If a large graph is split into multiple files of manageable size,
    the triples can be split across those files (and blank nodes for
    reification are broken).

The agreed Turtle syntax hides some of these issues (it addresses 1, it 
tends away from 4 and 5). It does not apply for N-triples, and not for 
SPARQL results when thought of as querying a triple table.


The general idea, and as mentioned last week, is to introduce a unit 
"reification atom" that means the equivalents of 
rdf:subject/rdf:predicate/rdf:object are not split.

The agreed Turtle syntax applies.


There has been requests for formal semantics in proposals so I have 
tried to provide that - I hope people here can help improve it in both 
presentation and content.

https://github.com/afs/rdf-star-notes/blob/main/reif-atoms.md

https://github.com/afs/rdf-star-notes/blob/main/reif-atoms-interpret.md

     Andy

[1] https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-rdf-star-minutes.html#x123
[2] https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html#x169
[3] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0136.html

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2024 17:10:22 UTC