Re: Making querying of annotations optional

On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 15:41 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> > On 15 Aug 2024, at 17:25, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
> > 
> > Am 15. August 2024 16:45:29 MESZ schrieb Franconi Enrico <
> > franconi@inf.unibz.it>:
> > > Before letting this discussion go too far, I want to be sure that
> > > we share the same assumptions.
> > > [0] assumes a CG-style notion of triple reification, which is not
> > > the one adopted by the current baseline.
> > 
> > I don't think so: IIUC embedded triples in [0] are asserted and
> > referentially transparent types, wheras in the CG report they are
> > unasserted and referentially opaque types.
> 
> [0] does not define a semantics for RDF*, nor simple entailment, but
> syntactically [0] has an abstract syntax mirroring the CG syntax,
> where there is no distinction between triple terms and triple
> reifiers; and SPARQL* in [0] is not based on BGP matching.

SPARQL* in [0] is based on BGP matching, with the addition that it also
takes into account the triples that are contained within other triples
of the queried graph.

> I’ve nothing against [0], I am only observing that is quite far away
> from our baseline.

Yes, and you can happily ignore this branch of the email thread which I
only opened to quickly react to something that Thomas wrote about [0].
It is not really relevant to the current discussions of our group.

Best,
Olaf

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2024 15:57:03 UTC