- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 13:08:37 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 8/30/24 08:43, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > > > 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 There are only four possibilities - entails false, entails true, entails neither, and entailing both. Entailing not true is either nonsensical or entailing false. >> (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) >> [...] >> > peter
Received on Saturday, 31 August 2024 17:08:48 UTC