Re: Event Updated: RDF-star WG biweekly meeting

On 29 Aug 2024, at 11:46, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de> wrote:

Better, I wonder whether we need to make a better overall notation to distinguish between triple terms and triples because in my opinion this problem keeps popping up.

Triple terms and triples are distinct categories in the grammar, and moreover they are unambiguous in any graph.

Interesting at that point is that we again loose the representation level when we go into the semantics.  What if we again add equality and consider the triples

:s rdf:states :o.
:o owl:sameAs <<(:a :b :c)>>.

We cannot easily derive

:a :b :c.

because our semantics does not really know how <<(:a :b :c)>> relates to RE(:a :b :c) which is just a domain element. Maybe the fact that RE is injective could help here?
This kind of problem was in the beginning the reason why I opted for referential opacity. I wanted the representation of the triple be part of the semantics. But I see some inverse of RE as a possible solution.

Indeed the inverse on RE is a still a function over resources which is either undefined, or it gives exactly the triple term denoting the resource.

cheers
—e.