- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 18:07:39 +0200
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Le 27/03/2023 à 17:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
> It would be useful to have some more explanation and some examples.
Yes, it is brutally asserting the definitions and nothing else.
> From my quick read this appears to be very lose to to using RDF
> reification plus uniqueness of triples.
Yes. The one benefit that I see is that it does not require introducing
a vocabulary that would "reserve" some URIs.
> In the Satisfaction section it appears that either a nor J[a] is defined
> for blank nodes.
Damn, I sometimes used bold face T as if it meant the set of all terms,
while it is in fact defined as the set of RDF-star triples.
α should be defined on "B ⋃ T ∖ Gnd".
There is an unfortunate copy-paste error before the colon of the 1st
paragraph in section "az-Satisfaction"("𝓘[α](t) = : T → Δ" should be
"𝓘[α]: T → Δ" and the second item of the first bullet list of this
section should have "B ⋃ T ∖ Gnd" instead of "T ⋃ Gnd".
I'll correct that.
--AZ
>
> peter
>
>
> On 3/27/23 09:09, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> This is mostly for the semantics task force.
>>
>> I wrote this:
>> https://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/W3C/RDF-star-semantics/
>>
>> The idea is that embedded triples are interpreted as arbitrary
>> resources and the resources denoted by the subject, predicate, and
>> object of an embedded triple are connected (semantically) to the
>> embedded-triple-resource via 3 properties that depend on the
>> interpretation.
>>
>> Now, please comment and destroy this proposal :)
>
--
Antoine Zimmermann
ISI - Institut Henri Fayol
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
https://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
Received on Monday, 27 March 2023 16:07:58 UTC