Re: Occurrences as Named Triples

On 11/01/2024 12:41, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11. Jan 2024, at 12:02, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2024 10:38, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> In this proposal (edge set), that seems to be a consequence of the design. The edge set has an additional mandatory condition. Inferences relating to the name of the occurrence need to obey that condition. That connects the edge set to RDF semantics.
>>
>> (Maybe I read it wrong.)
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> [Aside: Could you write this as triples? The emails are for the wider audience as well. Thanks.]
> 
> I just did it a little in [0]. Here is a fuller account. Note that I use the triple term syntax in the RDF-star CG report sense, that is
> 
>      << :s :p :o >>
> 
> *doesn’t* expand to
> 
>      << [] |: s :p :o >>

<< :s :p :o >> has become ambiguous across the discussions.

As in <<( :s :p :o )>> ?

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Dec/0080.html

(consolidation/triple terms)

"Occurences sets" is another attempt given the points raised about 
triple-inference implications.

> i.e. it does not represent an occurrence but the type (if it should indeed be referentially  opaque or rather transparent will be discusssed below).
> 
> For the annotation syntax however I assume such an implicitly defined identifier when I don’t explicitly provide one.

     Andy

Received on Thursday, 11 January 2024 13:58:40 UTC