- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:23:12 -0500
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Cc: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 1/22/24 15:07, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > I’m not trying to be formal here... > >> On 22. Jan 2024, at 20:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> This expands (using the base expansion) to something like: >> >> :1w rdf:type rdf:Statement . >> :1w rdf:subject :bill-clinton . >> :1w rdf:predicate :related-to . >> :1w rdf:oject :hillary-rodham . >> :1w :starts 1975 . >> :1w rdf:type rdf:Statement . >> :1w rdf:subject :42nd-potus . >> :1w rdf:predicate :husband . >> :1w rdf:oject :1st-female-NY-senator . >> :1w :starts 1975 . >> >> which looks *very* weird to me. I am not aware of any use of RDF reification that depends on the ability to have multiple subject, predicates, or objects. > > IMO that’s not weird at all. Reification is referentially transparent, so why shouldn’t it be possible to add other IRIs that refer to the same entity? But there is nothing saying that they do refer to the same entity. And in one case - :related-to and :husband - they do not refer to the same entity in the real world, not that this difference is germane. [...] > > Thomas
Received on Monday, 22 January 2024 20:23:18 UTC