- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 10:37:09 -0400
- To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
I was thinking about the various semantics for RDF-star and noticed something strange when equality (or any means to enforce equality) is considered. In the community report I would have thought that _:k owl:sameAs :j . _:l owl:sameAs :j . :c :d << _:k :y :z >> . :a :b << _:l :y :z >> . entails :a :b << _:m :y :z >> . :c :d << _:m :y :z >> . because blank nodes are supposed to be transparent and so only their meaning counts. But this is not the case because the first graph turns into (roughly) _:k owl:sameAs :j . _:l owl:sameAs :j . :a :b _:kyz . _:kyz unstar:subject _:k . _:kyz unstar:predicate :y . _:kyz unstar:object :z . _:kyz unstar:predicateLexical ":y"^^xsd:string . _:kyz unstar:objectLexical ":z"^^xsd:string . :c :d _:lyz . _:lyz unstar:subject _:l . _:lyz unstar:predicate :y . _:lyz unstar:object :z . _:lyz unstar:predicateLexical ":y"^^xsd:string . _:lyz unstar:objectLexical ":z"^^xsd:string . and part of what the second graph turns into is :a :b _:myz . :c :d _:myz . So the identity of _:k and _:l is important, not just their denotation. peter
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2023 14:37:15 UTC