Re: Well-formedness for option 3

They both talk about my birth.
It is the prototypical example of reification of n-ary relations.
—e.

> On 29 Feb 2024, at 16:53, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 29, 2024, at 7:40 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The name "rdf:nameOf" is not a final name for the relationship and neither is its intended meaning so closely tied with (unique) naming, as far as my current knowledge of the relationship goes.  So appealing to some intuition about naming may not be useful.
>> 
>> So what is the relationshp?  How about it's just a relationship between an IRI or blank node and a quoted triple that can be used to get around the (unfortunate) uniqueness of quoted triples.
> 
> That’s fine. But I think it’s reasonable to ask what allowing that relationship to be one-to-many does to use-cases. And I’m struggling with this particular example, where I can’t even see my way to understanding it by way of reasoning where it might imply the triples are saying the same thing. What use-case is supported by :b1 having a relationship to both a triple about a date and another about a location?
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 February 2024 16:11:13 UTC