Round-Trippable RDF 1.2 Interoperability

Submitted by Dominik Tomaszuk on 08/30/2026 - 01:08

Tracking #: 4136-5350

Authors: 
Dominik Tomaszuk
Pierre-Antoine Champin

Responsible editor: 
Sebastián Ferrada

Submission type: 
Full Paper
Abstract: 
RDF 1.2 introduces triple terms, enabling an RDF triple to occur in the object position of another triple. This extension yields two conformance profiles: RDF 1.2 Full, allowing triple terms, and RDF 1.2 Basic, excluding them. Consequently, interoperability between Basic and Full implementations becomes non-trivial, as Basic processors cannot directly consume graphs containing triple terms. In response, the W3C Group Note Draft RDF 1.2 Interoperability, published by the RDF & SPARQL Working Group, describes a non-normative pair of transformations: basic encoding (Full -> Basic) and a corresponding decoding (Basic -> Full). This paper provides a mathematically precise account of that proposal, grounded in the RDF 1.2 abstract syntax and RDF 1.2 model-theoretic semantics. We formalize the syntax of triple terms, define recursive "appearance" of terms, specify encoding/decoding as functions on graphs and datasets, establish invertibility and idempotence results under explicit admissibility conditions, and briefly clarify their semantic status under standard RDF semantics.
Full PDF Version: 
PDF icon swj4136.pdf
Previous Version: 
Round-Trippable RDF 1.2 Interoperability
Tags: 
Reviewed
Long-term Stable Link to Resources: 
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18755743

Decision/Status: 
Accept

Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
By Julián Arenas-Guerrero submitted on 01/Sep/2026
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

I thank the authors for carefully addressing my comments. The implemented changes have improved the manuscript and I think it is ready to be published.

Review #2
By Ruben Taelman submitted on 07/Sep/2026
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

This is a revision that resolves most of the weaknesses I raised before in my previous review.
Concretely, it resolves weakness W1 (Unclear why a new vocabulary is used instead of the old-style reification vocabulary)
by explaining why the PropositionForm is used instead of the RDF 1.1 reification vocabulary.
Weakness W2 (The impact on specific RDF processors is not analyzed) has not been resolved,
which is ok, since I mentioned in my previous review that I understand that this is not in scope of this work.
Besides this, all my minor comments have also been resolved.

As such, I recommend this paper to be accepted in its current form.