Re: multiple kinds of transparency; simplicity over complexity

On Feb 17, 2023, at 11:33 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> It is clearly an option that the WG says that it wants to provide the means to represent only ‘annotations’ to syntactic triples, but then the WG should be transparent in saying that this is the case.


That may be an option, but it is not the case, and so we are not
transparently saying this is the case, because *it is not*.

We want to both annotate syntactic triples, which are asserted in
our data and might link to triples from distinct data sets, *and* 
annotate "triple literals" a/k/a "quoted triples" which are *not* 
asserted in our data and therefore do *not* link to other triples.

Ted





--
A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
| Q: Are you sure?           
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
         20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
     Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/
     LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
     Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
     Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers