Re: proposal: a reifier should reify only one "thing"

On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:37 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> While I am against this choice on the ground that it would rule out several typical reification use cases, let’s assume I accept it.
> 
> We have two ways to look at it: 
> the objects denote the same resource, but not their components s,p,o; 
> the objects denote the same resource, and also their components s,p,o denote the same resource, respectively.
> 
> (1) We can still write triples that Amazon-et-al apparently find confusing (most of us do not):

We all come from diverse backgrounds. I’m not sure if “us” was meant to mean WG members, or the RDF community/users, or something else, but I’d suggest we not make claims about what “most” people are or are not confused by here.

I’m not sure I’d describe myself as being confused by (most of) your proposal, but I do think it addresses use-cases which I myself have never encountered, it adds complexity for implementations, and (for myself) it adds mental complexity as I find the modeling counter to how I would naturally try to approach “statements about statements."

> :w1 rdf:reifies <<( :liz : married :richard )>> .
> :w1 :location :miami .
> :w1 rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :miami )>> .
> :w1 :groom :richard .
> :w1 rdf:reifies <<( :richard : married :liz )>> .
> 
> which by the way entails:
> <<( :liz : married :richard )>> owl:same-as <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

I do think this entailment might fall a bit closer towards “confused,” though. I thought I could get myself to an understanding of your reification use-case where the reified :w1 is in some way representing the marriage event. But this new entailment is saying that the triple terms themselves are the same, and I am really struggling to get an intuitive understanding of that. The triples do not represent the same relationship (one between two people, the other between a person and a location), and to me only start to have some connection once the reification or some other modeling of the wedding brings them together as being different aspects of the same event.

thanks,
greg