- From: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:43:01 +0200
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Am 30. August 2024 14:11:31 MESZ schrieb "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>: >Is anyone in the working group actually wanting the graph >:a rdf:reifies < :b :c :d > . >to entail that :b :c :d is false? not "false", but also not true in the graph. you should know the difference >(I don't remember anyone wanting that. I don't even remember any input to the working group advocating that.) > >If not, then arguments that include statements to that effect are not persuasive. > >peter > > >On 8/30/24 06:04, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: >[...] >> However, I also think that all those nuances still fall into two main categories, namely if the annotated triple term is meant to be true in the graph or not: >> - most of them are meant to be true (see use cases, see real world data) >> - those that aren't can’t be introduced first and then taken back (that would jeopardize monotonicity) >[...] >
Received on Friday, 30 August 2024 12:43:14 UTC