- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:40:07 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
good morning
> On 19. Dec 2023, at 09:26, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> No, that's not correct in terms of Andy's recent proposal. According to
> this proposal, the expression
>
> <<( :s :p :o )>>
>
> represents a triple term (triple type), whereas the expression
>
> << :s :p :o >>
>
> represents an occurrence with an unspecified name (which may be
> captured using a fresh blank node). Hence, the correct way to write
> your example by using this new interpretation of these expressions
> would be as follows.
>
> The expression
>
> << :s :p :o >> :accordingTo :john .
>
> expands to
>
> [] :occurrenceOf <<( :s :p :o )>> ;
> :accordingTo :john .
are we at the point where one could express a type/token relation as
<< :s :p :o >> a <<( :s :p :o )>> .
?
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2023 08:40:26 UTC