Re: Semantic Predication: 4 - more worked out examples

On tor, 2023-02-16 at 16:57 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 2023, at 17:53, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Enrico,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 16:06 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> > > > > Notice also that the relationship type 'created' is perhaps a bit
> > > > > special in the sense that it may have both a referentially opaque
> > > > > interpretation and a referentially transparent one (so, in a way,
> > > > > it has two meanings, and these can be separated by using two
> > > > > different IRIs). While there are certainly more examples of such
> > > > > types of relationships, I would think that for most types of
> > > > > relationships only one of the two interpretations makes sense. 
> > > >  
> > > > Yes.
> > >  
> > > Let me emphasise this: YES!
> > > This shows that the important bit to look at, in order to understand
> > > which meaning an embedded triple has, is the predication.
> > > In the dct:created case, the meanings are more precisely: (1) a
> > > property stating the created date of the creating event induced by
> > > the embedded triple; (2) a property stating the created date of the
> > > triple denoted by the embedded triple itself.
> >  
> > I agree!
> > 
> > In this case, however, doesn't the fact that there are two meanings
> > justify the need for two separate IRIs, where each of them captures one
> > of these meanings?
> > 
> > Then, shouldn't the "<<< ... >>>" versus "<< ... >>" version of your
> > Example 2 also use two different IRIs rather than overloading
> > 'dct:created' with both meanings?
> 
> No, since the counterexample to Timothée's trick with :transparentType applies also here.

I don't see how that counterexample is relevant here. Can you please explain how the counterexample applies in the
context of my question.

Or, perhaps, we are misunderstanding one another. Let me try to ask my question again: In the "<<< ... >>>" versus "<<
... >>" version of your Example 2, the data looks as follows (for clarity, I have removed the Turtle shorthand notion
with the semicolon and, instead, use a NTriples-like notation with one triple per line).

<<< :catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :alice >>> rdf:type :cataloging .
<<< :catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :alice >>> dct:created "2022-07-01"^^xsd:date .

<< :catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :mary >> rdf:type unstar:triple .
<< :catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :mary >> dct:created "2022-08-04"^^xsd:date .

Now, if I understand your previous emails right, you say that the meaning of the dct:created property in the second of
these triples is that it is "a property stating the created date of the creating event induced by the embedded triple"
whereas the meaning of dct:created in the fourth triple is that it is "a property stating the created date of the triple
denoted by the embedded triple itself." So, the same IRI, dct:created, has two different meanings in this example. Do
you agree?

If you agree, wouldn't you also agree that these two different meanings should actually be denoted by two different
IRIs?

Olaf

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2023 18:24:11 UTC