Re: Consolidating triple/edges -- named occurrence version

Hi Niklas, Enrico,

I seem to have missed something in recent developments and discussions, but the syntax of these examples confuses me. Is the following 

>   << :wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >> .

an "occurrence term" (my label), and as such is asserted? 
so different from an unasserted triple term 
    << :liz :spouse :richard >>
and syntactic sugar for 
    :wed-1 rdfx:occurrenceOf << :liz :spouse :richard >>
? 

One more thing below. 

Am 5. Januar 2024 11:58:21 MEZ schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>:
>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> .

You do introduce a graph here. Just a slight change of the syntax and it would be "official":

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

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

It's also obvious how this would syntactically map to RDF named graphs. Of course a merely syntactic mapping would lose the semantics. But that again could be added via a description (ideally using a standard vocabulary, as the RDF 1.1 WG envisioned in the Note on dataset semantics). 

>It does make sense.

It follows the logic of graphs in RDF datasets: graphs with the same name but different content are merged. It's an occurrence centric intuition. Understood as types one would rather assume an owl:sameAs intuition. But I agree with you. 
And I'm glad to see that you both have no concerns about introducing graphs, at least wrt semantics ;-) That syntactic issue is probably very easy to resolve. I will hopefully soon post a more detailed discussion of the issues with graphs that Peter pointed out and that IMHO are all resolvable. 

>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.

Just to clarify that I understand correctly: by "triple terms (as definite descriptions)" you mean the triple terms themselfes, e. g. used "stand alone" or in other combinations with other triple terms in other (in this syntax somehow "virtual", only denoted by the occurrence identifier) graph occurrences? 


All this confirms me in my intuition that an extension of the current proposal towards graph terms/occurrences is both unavoidable and straightforward.


Best, 
Thomas 


>cheers
>—e.

Received on Friday, 5 January 2024 12:30:44 UTC