Re: multiple kinds of transparency; simplicity over complexity

> On 23. Feb 2023, at 14:15, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/02/2023 13:53, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>>> On 18. Feb 2023, at 23:39, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
> ...
>>> Quoted triples are a building block, not a complete solution for all use cases.
>> tl;dr
>> We can’t have too many different building blocks, so the art is to design them in the right way. And don’t forget that we have two building blocks already: quoted triples and the shortcut syntax. The latter could very well have a more "main path" semantics, like: already refer to a referentially transparent occurrence (which is of course asserted).
> 
> Is that a proposal that complete semantics happens when the target triple is available, and not by default if a quoted triple in a graph without the target triple asserted? In other words the "semantics" is due to the triple, not the naming of the triple.

I’m not sure I understand your question properly. 

An asserted triple is always referentially transparent. The quoted triple per the CG semantics refers only to the referentially opaque subset of what the asserted triple refers to. One could define the shortcut syntax to refer to an occurrence that is referentially transparent, to the effect that an annotation per the shortcut syntax annotates the asserted triple in all its referentially transparent glory, not just in the exact syntactic form it happens to be represented in by the quoted triple.

Does that help? I’m happy to expand but as I said, I’m not sure I understand your question corecctly.

Thomas

>    Andy

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2023 16:59:42 UTC