Re: RDF-star semantics: option 3 (first DRAFT)

Presumably the bluish and redish parts in the definition of I+A should 
encompass not just the if conditions but the entire lines.

There isn't anything to say how to split up triple terms and triple 
occurrences.  It's probably easier to just say t.s is a tripleOccurrence id s 
p o and not bother with the accessors.

It looks as if the triple occurrence semantics is missing an ID.  And then 
that part could be replaced with [I+A](x) as appropriate.  That is unless 
there is supposed to be a difference between

s p o .
o rdf:nameOf <<( a b c )>>.

and

s p <<o | a b c>> .


peter

Received on Friday, 16 February 2024 15:24:31 UTC