Re: Consolidating triple/edges -- named occurrence version

On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 10:58 +0000, Franconi Enrico 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.

Notice that this diverges quite a bit from the Property Graph
perspective. PG folks would understand the IRI :wed-1 to be an
identifier of an edge, and they would see two edges here (one from :liz
to :richard and another one from :richard to :liz). Then, they would
get confused because two different edges cannot have the same
identifier.

Notice also that a semantics such as this would probably not be very
useful for provenance use cases. I would assume that, in such use
cases, it makes a difference whether the provenance annotation is about
the triple (:liz, :source, :richard) or about the triple (:richard,
:source, :liz).

Best,
Olaf


> 
> > 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 adefinite 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.

Received on Friday, 5 January 2024 13:46:13 UTC