Re: "Multi-Edge Support in RDFn" slides

On 16/12/2022 17:54, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> Pierre-Antoine,
>
>> On 16. Dec 2022, at 16:51, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 15/12/2022 17:52, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> The talk about whether or not owl:sameAs should be considered when thinking about RDF-star is a bit disconcerting as the mapping that provides semantic for RDF-star has aspects that are only interesting when there is a mechanism like owl:sameAs that can require that the denotations of two IRIs are identical.   Given this, it seems to me that owl:sameAs should be considered when discussing any aspect of RDF-star.
>> If I remember correctly, the RDF 1.1 WG discussed at some point the possiblity of including owl:sameAs (or an equivalent rdf:equals) in the core RDF semantics, but in the end decided against it.
>>
>> We can definitely reopen the question, though.
> this is so besides the point. owl:sameAs is not a property from some obscure vocabulary, it is not some made up class like ":Lie" with "let’s pretend it’s english" semantics. Quite to the contrary it is a crisply defined property of an ontology that is foundational to the Semantic Web, an integral part of it. It simply doesn’t matter if this property is defined in RDF or not, and that should be obvious to anybody passingly familiar with the semantic web.

It does matter for a group that is concerned with RDF (which is, indeed, 
just one building block of the semantic web), and not with OWL.

Not all people that use RDF need the full expressiveness of OWL, nor are 
willing to pay the computational cost for it.

>
> This style of argumentation is just destructive.
ditto
>   I wasn’t in the mood to call it out yesterday on your reply to me, but really: what do you think is achieved by such nit-picking? It just adds noise and distracts from the real issues.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
>