Skip to content

Quoted Triples #23

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
gkellogg opened this issue Mar 20, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #32
Closed

Quoted Triples #23

gkellogg opened this issue Mar 20, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #32
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature

Comments

@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

The RDF-star CG Report describes the core concepts RDF-star graph, RDF-star dataset, and RDF-star triple. Additionally, it defines quoted triple, asserted triple, and constituent terms.

This issue is for either using these definitions in RDF 1.2 Concepts, or updating the definitions of core components in RDF 1.2 to include the notion of a triple as an RDF term so that a triple is inherently recursively defined.

@gkellogg gkellogg added needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature labels Mar 20, 2023
@hartig
Copy link
Contributor

hartig commented Mar 20, 2023

[...] or updating the definitions of core components in RDF 1.2 to include the notion of a triple as an RDF term so that a triple is inherently recursively defined.

I would say that this is not possible because it would require definitions that have a circular dependency on one another. Instead, the notion of an RDF triple (assuming an RDF 1.2 version that incorporates RDF-star) has to defined in a recursive way as done in the CG report.

@gkellogg gkellogg changed the title Quoted/Embedded Triples Quoted Triples Apr 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants