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

About the discussion on the meaning of the example:
<< :w3 | :bill-clinton :related-to :hillary-rodham >> :starts 1975 .
<< :w3 | :42nd-potus :husband :1st-female-NY-senator >> :starts 1975 .

Let me guide you you through the meaning of a sequence of examples, where the crucial bit is to understand the use of definite descriptions (The …):

<< _:t1 | :s :p :o >> a :triple; :stored-by :john ; :on-date 2023 .
<< _:t2 | :s :p :o >> a :triple; :stored-by :mary ; :on-date 2020 .

The triple :s :p :o is stored by John in 2023;
let me refer to this specific triple as _:t1.
The triple :s :p :o is stored by Mary in 2020;
let me refer to this specific triple as _:t2.

<< _:s1 | :paul :loves :mary >> :uttered-by :john .
<< _:s2 | :paul :loves :mary >> :confuted-by :paul .

The statement of Paul loving Mary is uttered by John;
let me refer to this specific statement as _:s1.
The statement of Paul loving Mary is confuted by Paul;
let me refer to this specific statement as _:s2.

<< :w1 | :liz :wife :richard >> :starts 1964.
<< :w2 | :liz :wife :richard >> :starts 1975.

The situation of Liz being the wife of Richard starts in 1964;
let me refer to this specific situation as :w1.
The situation of Liz being the wife of Richard starts in 1975;
let me refer to this specific situation as :w2.

<< :w1 | :richard :spouse :liz >> :ends 1974 .

The situation of Richard being the spouse of Richard ended in 1974;
let me refer to this specific situation as :w1, the same as above.

<< _:bp1-23 | :book1 :datePublished 2023 >> a :PublicationEvent .
<< _:bp1-23 | :book1 :publisher :pa >> :location :London .

The event of book "1" being published on 2023 is a :PublicationEvent;
let me refer to this specific event as _:bp1-23.
The event of book "1" being published by publisher "a" is located in London;
let me refer to this specific event as _:bp1-23, the same as above.

<< :w3 | :bill-clinton :related-to :hillary-rodham >> :starts 1975 .
<< :w3 | :42nd-potus :husband :1st-female-NY-senator >> :starts 1975 .

The situation of Bill Clinton being related to Hillary Rodham starts in 1975;
let me refer to this specific situation as :w3.
The situation of the 42nd POTUS being the husband to the 1st female NY senator starts in 1975;
let me refer to this specific situation as :w3, the same as above.

cheers
—e.

On 23 Jan 2024, at 00:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:



On 1/22/24 17:48, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
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

:related-to and :husband are actually *very* different.  There is no way that anyone should conflate the two relationships.

That :bill-clinton and :42nd-potus can be considered to refer to the same person is simply an accident of some people's reality.  If an RDF graph does not include information that they are one and the same, then no action should be taken based on this intrusion of non-universal reality.

In any case, I've always viewed any reification that has multiple subjects, predicates, or objects as very unusual.

peter