- From: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 03:58:28 +0000
- To: RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CY5PR10MB607145F534F15E02F3ED232CFA95A@CY5PR10MB6071.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Thanks for your answers to my earlier questions. I am still processing them.
In the mean time, here is an example of what users may want support for:
# type (asserted)
:Trump :won :Election .
# asserted occurrence (of type with same s-p-o) and annotations
:Trump :won :Election | custom:won2016 .
custom:won2016 :accordingTo :Government .
custom:won2016 :accordingTo :Trump .
# unasserted occurrence (of type with same s-p-o) and annotations
<< :Trump :won :Election >> | custom:won2020 .
custom:won2020 :accordingTo :Trump .
I don't think we have ever discussed how to model this. Of course, one could instead state each occurrence uniformly with the << ... >> enclosure and use an isAsserted property applicable to the occurrence:
# asserted occurrence (of type with same s-p-o) and annotations
<< :Trump :won :Election >> | custom:won2016 .
custom:won2016 rdfn:isAsserted true .
...
# unasserted occurrence (of type with same s-p-o) and annotations
<< :Trump :won :Election >> | custom:won2020 .
custom:won2020 rdfn:isAsserted false .
...
I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Souri.
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2023 03:58:39 UTC