Re: Occurrences as Named Triples

> On 11. Jan 2024, at 11:17, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 06/01/2024 19:03, Niklas Lindström wrote:


> -- What is the name token?
> 
> No URIs for names or there are now RDF graphs can't be merged yet each graph on its own is valid.
> 
> The names can't be blank nodes because the edge set names have a special property of "no inference" which would apply to the set of triples.

I’m not sure I understand you properly but you seem to say that names for occurrences can’t be regular URIs or blank nodes and need to be defined as a separate set because the triple term they refer to is referentially opaque.

I was hoping that we could go the following way: even if the triple trem is opaque, the reference - eg the rdfx:occurrenceOf relation - refers to its referentially transparent interpretation. Or we could have different variants of the occurrenceOf property that refer to either the referentially opaque or the referentially transparent interpretation. 

If we don’t provide a link to the referentially transparent interpretation then we are back to one of the CG report’s basic problems: that what it annotates is nowhere to be found in the data. An annotation on a referentially opaque triple (no matter if term or occurrence) is never the same as an annotation on a referentially transparent triple (no matter if term or occurrence) of the same type. The disconnect is doubled: there is no direct link (there is in the annotation syntax but that’s just syntax, and there would be if we annotated graphs) and the two syntaxes do not even share the same semantics.

Thomas

>    Andy
>

Received on Thursday, 11 January 2024 10:38:27 UTC