Re: Consolidating triple/edges -- named occurrence version

Examples with situations (as opposed to events):

:john :believes << :s1 | << _:e1 | :liz :spouse :richard >> :starts “1964” >> .
:paul :believes << :s2 | << _:e2 | :liz :spouse :richard >> :starts “1965” >> .

John believes in the situation characterised by the state of marriage between Liz and Richard started in 1964, while Paul believes in the situation characterised by the state of marriage between Liz and Richard started in 1965. None of these situations more these states are necessarily true in the asserted world.

A triple occurrence denotes an actual reference of a definite description expressed as a triple term.

—e.

On 5 Jan 2024, at 11:58, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

On 5 Jan 2024, at 11:42, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, it has implications for how to define these occurrences (truth-makers, right [1]?), which we need to come to terms with together.
For example, I think this makes sense:

   << :wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >> .
   << :wed-1 | :richard :spouse :liz >> .
   :wed-1 a :Marriage ;
       :starts 1964 ;
       :ends 1974 .

Would you agree?

Yes, it does.

If so, how about:

   PREFIX : <https://schema.org/>

   << <#bp23> | <book> :datePublished "2023" >> .
   << <#bp23> | <book> :publisher <X> >> .
   <#bp23> a :PublicationEvent ;
       :location <London> .

It does make sense.
To better see that, you can verbalise the triple term (the truth-bearer) as a definite description:
you are saying that “the publication of <book> in 2023” and “the publication of <book> by <X>” in that graph snippet both refer indeed to a single publication event located in London; and, clearly, those triple terms (as definite descriptions) could refer to something different in other parts of your graph.
cheers
—e.