Re: One kind of "occurs" relation or many?

good evening;

> On 20. Dec 2023, at 09:02, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Thomas,
> On 19/12/2023 15:27, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 19. Dec 2023, at 10:09, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Andy,
>>> On 18/12/2023 22:08, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> 
>>>> That triggered a question:
>>>> 
>>>> Is rdf:occurenceOf , or whatever we name it, the only relationship between an occurrence/token in the domain, and a triple type/term?
>>>> 
>>>> Are there useful subproperties of rdf:occurenceOf?
>>>> 
>>>> While these could be by (rdf:)typing the occurrence separately, subproperties can be clearer and don't "loose" the type when looking at just the occurrence-term triple.
>>>> 
>>> I agree, and this is the main reason I have fought for a long time against the idea of introducing a "default" predicate between the occurrence identifier and the triple term...
>>> But now, I have come to consider that the pros overweight the cons.
>>> NB: inserting a triple using the more specific subproperty of rdf:occurrenceOf (or whatever we name it) can still be done
>>> 
>> I’d rather have the most basic arrangements introduced explicitly.
> You can't do more "basic" than having one very general predicate.
> Any further refinement would raise legitimate questions: why did we chose to include distinction A and leave distinction B aside? 
> Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the distinctions you are making below are uninteresting. On the contrary. But I don't think that this group has the skills nor the time to produce an appropriate ontology of the "triple occurrences". Nor do I think that it should be part of the RDF vocabulary.
>   pa

it is the fate of this rdf-star effort that it has taken so many years for its participants to demonstrate - even if not to realize, that it is grappling with an issue which concerns interpretation and is not to be captured by just even the most effective notation for statement quotation.

it will not be possible to capture the wealth of meanings implicit in statement annotation by dictating just the exact interpretation of any given single predicate.

one significant feature of the nested named graphs proposal is that it provides a mechanism to articulate the relations between statements and their annotations as the basis on which to interpret their meanings.
the initial matrix oversimplifies, but it opens the way to conceive of a semantics for statement annotation based on an entailment regime applied to the articulated relations.

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2023 22:07:20 UTC