Re: Consolidating triple/edges -- named occurrence version

On 05/01/2024 13:46, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> 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?

I'm confused by this example.

The inference based on earlier discussions is that :richard and :liz are 
the same individual (a consequence of the occurrence name being functional).

>>
>>
>> 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).

Agreed.

In terms of collecting requirements by the proposal subgroup ...

something like the S/P/O terms refer to the same resources but the 
"triple" is a "triple representative" / "triple usage" that does not 
necessarily have all the implications of the fact triple.

     Andy

 >
 > 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 14:41:14 UTC