- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:46:31 -0500
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 2/16/24 10:40, Franconi Enrico wrote: > > >> On 16 Feb 2024, at 16:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Presumably the bluish and redish parts in the definition of I+A should encompass not just the if conditions but the entire lines. > > of course > >> 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. > > ? There is no definition of .id, or .s, or .o, or .p for the triple occurrences ts and to. >> 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>> . > > ? <[I+A](to.id), <[I+A](to.s),[I+A](to.p),[I+A](to.o)>> ∈ [I+A](rdf:nameOf) appears incorrect, and probably instead should be <[I+A](to.id), ID<[I+A](to.s),[I+A](to.p),[I+A](to.o)>> ∈ [I+A](rdf:nameOf) which can then be shortened to <[I+A](to.id), [I+A](to.t)> ∈ [I+A](rdf:nameOf) peter
Received on Friday, 16 February 2024 15:46:35 UTC