Meeting minutes
<TallTed> last week's -- https://
<Souri> I too feel that "association of a resource and a triple-term" is easier to explain than explaining "reification" -- it will also be better to avoid "occurrence" if we can.
<tl> tl
<doerthe> :(
<doerthe> I still dislike the object position restriction
<tl> doerthe there's still generalized RDF ;-)
<niklasl> There is.
<niklasl> "Triple terms can only be referred to once you've reified them." I do agree, but are we clear about that?
<niklasl> (I would not say it exactly like that though. What we refer to are reifiers of triples (triple terms)?)
<doerthe> not sure I like the reifier class, but yes, examples will help :9
<tl> :John rdf12:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> ;
<tl> a ex:Believe.
<tl> rdf12:reifies rdfs:domain rdf12:Reifier .
<pfps> See page 3 of https://
<pfps> The problem is that triple terms are unique, as opposed to the standard RDF reification.
<pfps> That this problem occurs in the initial paper on RDF* is telling.
<tl> :John rdf12:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> ;
<tl> a ex:Believe.
<tl> rdf12:reifies a rdf12:TripleTermProperty . # because it has a triple term in object position
<tl> rdf12:TripleTermProperty rdfs:domain rdf12:Reifier . # axiomatic triple
<tl> # This makes :John both a believe and a rdf12:Reifier.
<tl> # At least making :John a reifier should raise an alarm users.
<tl> :John ex:believs <<( :s :p :o )>> .
<doerthe> but that was the point, right? That we do not want John as a reifier and the class will show it
:John :believes <<( :s :p :o )>> ; a ex:Belief.
<doerthe> (not sure I like that, but I get the point :) )
<niklasl> Yes, that's how I took it.
<niklasl> e.g. ex:Person owl:disjointWith rdf12:Reifier . ?
:believes a :reificationproperty
:jonh a rdf:reifier.
<doerthe> I dislike well-formedness, so yes.
<doerthe> ah, OK, I just disliked well-formedness as mandatory
<doerthe> let us know if you need review/help writing :)