- 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