Re: Consolidating triple/edges -- named occurrence version

Hi Olaf,
I’m referring to the semantics proposed in [1] - as previously referred to by Andy.
Of course, it is possible to consider other semantics.
—e.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Semantics:-Andy's-proposal

On 5 Jan 2024, at 12:51, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:

Hi Enrico,

You recent emails about these "correct derivations with triple
occurrences" are confusing me. The way these emails are written makes
it sound as if there can be no other semantics of triple occurrences
than a semantics that leads to the entailments that you mention. Is
this really the case? Or should I read you emails more as a proposal of
requirements to be satisfied by the semantics to be defined, where this
proposal is up to discussion?

Thanks,
Olaf


On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 09:32 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
Important retraction!
The entailments involving owl:same-as in my past emails with are
FALSE.
Indeed, equality does not play any special role in triple
occurrences.

The examples below show some correct derivations with triple
occurrences, emphasising that the same triple term may have distinct
occurrences, and that the same referent may be the occurrence of
distinct triples:
<< :wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >>
 :starts 1964 ;
 :ends 1974 .
<< :wed-2 | :liz :spouse :richard >>
 :starts 1975 ;
 :ends 1976 .
<< :wed-2 | :liz a :wife >> .
The above entails:
<< :wed-1 :starts 1964 >> .
<< [] | _:x a :wife >>
 :starts 1975 .
—e.

On 4 Jan 2024, at 16:00, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
wrote:

For example:

<< wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >> .
  :starts 1964; :end 1974 .
:richard owl:same-as :richard-burton
⊨
<< :wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard-burton >> .

and the other way round as well:

<< wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >> .
  :starts 1964; :end 1974 .
<< :wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard-burton >> .
⊨
:richard owl:same-as :richard-burton

—e.