- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 14:45:11 +0100
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 12:56 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > << :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 . > > Should that be: > > :wed-1 :starts 1964 . > << [] | _:x a :wife >> > :starts 1975 . > > using the name? > > > oops! YES, you’re right. Ah, that clarifies that detail. I did assume that since that was already asserted (through the "triple occurrence" syntax (here used in "sketch form", to allude to Thomas' further question)), that you meant that the assertion also "entails the occurrence". This may or may not be a consequence; I suppose intuitively it should, but as there is currently no "reifications are always entailed by assertions" in RDF semantics (right?), it hasn't yet been called for as a formal necessity. (Of course, again there's that "Named Graphs 2005, Carroll et al" paper...) All the best, Niklas > —e. >
Received on Friday, 5 January 2024 13:45:44 UTC