Re: Our approach to unasserted assertions is ambiguous and lossy [ was: Re: streamlining the baseline]

I do not understand this entire line of argument at all.

The idea seems to be that there is a fundamental difference between the two 
uses of rdf:reifies in the two RDF graphs
{
    _:x rdf:reifies (embedded P) .
}
and
{
    _:y rdf:reifies (embedded P) .
    P
}

So that there is a need for two different relationships in the RDF namespace as in
{
    _:x rdf:cites (embedded :Moon :madeOf :Cheese );
        :reportedBy :Alice .
}

{
    _:y rdf:asserts (embedded :Moon :madeOf :Cheese ) ;
        :claimedBy :Bob .
    :Moon :madeOf :Cheese .
}

because in one case :Bob is claming that the embedded triple is true but the 
other case :Alice is merely reporting on the embedded triple without claiming 
that it is true.


But there is no reason to assert the embedded triple just because :Bob is 
making a claim about it, nor is there any reason to use different 
relationships to the embedded triple just because the reifier is used in 
different ways.

That is rdf:reifies is adequate for both

{
    _:x rdf:reifies (embedded :Moon :madeOf :Cheese );
        :reportedBy :Alice .
}

{
    _:y rdf:reifies (embedded :Moon :madeOf :Cheese ) ;
        :claimedBy :Bob .
    :Moon :madeOf :Cheese .
}

whether or not

    :Moon :madeOf :Cheese .

is also asserted in the same RDF graph or there are other reports or claims 
about the same triple in that graph.

peter

Received on Monday, 1 July 2024 14:05:51 UTC