On 20 Dec 2023, at 10:26, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote: That's my reading as well. However, maybe someone with a more intimate understanding of the subtleties* of the notions of a token and an occurrence should look at this question. *https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/#Occ Are these fundamental in the abstract syntax? Or is the token considered syntactic sugar for something like [] rdfx:occurrenceOf <<( :s :p :o )>>? When I read Andy's email, I was assuming the latter, and that's also what my immediate reaction would be, now that you ask this question explicitly. I’m trying to write the formal model theoretic semantics of Andy’s proposal. I have a problem about having triple terms as the basis for everything. Consider the example: :wed-1 rdfx:occurrenceOf <<(:liz :spouse :richard )>> . :wed-1 :start 1964; :end 1974 . :richard owl:same-as :richard-burton ⊨ :wed-1 rdfx:occurrenceOf <<(:liz :spouse :richard-burton)>> . _:b1 rdfx:occurrenceOf <<(:liz :spouse _:b2)>> . _:b1 :start 1964 . This requires triple terms to have a strong semantic: namely, the identity of triple terms depends on their components. For this reason, I tried to formalise a semantics based on triple occurrences. You can see it at: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Semantics:-Andy's-proposal cheers —e.
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2023 16:01:47 UTC