- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 09:21:04 -0500
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
I dispute this equivalence.
In :a :b << :s :p :o >> . :a :b << :s1 :p1 :o1 >> . there are two separate :b
links from :a to two different triples. In :a :b { :s :p :o . :s1 :p1 :o1 .
} there is only one :b link from :a and it is to something that is not a triple.
Perhaps some extension of some version of RDF might want to infer the second
from the first but at the RDF graph level there is a fundamental difference.
peter
On 12/16/23 01:26, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Yes! And if we invert the relationship, as Andy has shown, to talk
> about the occurrence, things really start to fall into place. We
> talked about that at the end of the Semantics TF telecon (and looked
> quickly at an example in IRC). That is, this:
>
> :occurrence rdf:occurrenceOf << :s1 :p1 :o1 >> .
> :occurrence rdf:occurrenceOf << :s2 :p2 :o2 >> .
>
> ... is a named occurrence of a graph! That is, a graph term in Notation 3:
>
> :occurrence rdf:occurrenceOf { :s1 :p1 :o1, :o2 } .
>
> can, conversely, be represented in RDF-star by the triples above.
>
Received on Saturday, 16 December 2023 14:21:11 UTC