Re: Against the notion of reification well-formed graph (i.e., atomicity)

> On 22. Jan 2024, at 21:23, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

How so? Assuming that with "they" you mean the IRIs refering to subject, predicate and object… 

> 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.

… :bill-clinton and :42nd-potus both refer to the same person. Same for :hillary-rodham and :1st-female-NY-senator. And :husband and :related-to are close enough in intuitive meaning to count as a valid example to make a case. So the terms in object position of the respective relations all co-refer to the same entities.

What is the thrust of your comment?

> [...]
>> Thomas
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 22 January 2024 22:48:49 UTC