On 16 Feb 2024, at 16:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: There is no definition of .id, or .s, or .o, or .p for the triple occurrences ts and to. Given a tripleOccurrence r, we denote the identifier of r as r.id, and the subject, predicate, object of r as r.s, r.p, r.o, respectively. Replace r with 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) Yes, agree. —e.
Received on Friday, 16 February 2024 15:58:06 UTC