- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:44:41 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 04/04/2024 16:30, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2024, at 03:41 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>>
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :date 1962 .
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :location :rome .
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :location :rome .
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :date 1962 .
>>>
>>> It helps with the issue of naming, but it doesn’t address the asymmetry. Now Enrico has married-in and married-on properties, and the reification has date and location properties. Why is this a good model of properties that all come from the same relation where they are all properties of birth certificates?
>>
>> They are not: has married-in and married-on have domain person, while date and location have domain birth certificate. They NEED to be distinct properties, and depending on what are you talking about (people or birth certificates) you use the former of the latter.
>
>
> Too many things were left unsaid in the initial post (e.g.,
> domain and range of each property), left for the reader to
> infer from what *is* said.
>
> When such inference is stated, or such absence is flagged,
> the response *must* restate what was correctly stated in
> the first place, *and* clearly state the corrections and/or
> additions; else, we are stuck with fuzzy and incomplete
> inferences, which often differ from the original poster's
> original and/or revised intent.
>
> Complicated and confusing discussions like this require that
> all relevant details be stated clearly in each message, and
> for each example.
Agreed.
One way would be to write a use case for this - or highlight an existing
one.
Andy
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 April 2024 13:44:47 UTC