- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:44:36 +0000
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- CC: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Didn’t you get the email? The meeting is confirmed. —e. > On 4 Jul 2024, at 16:32, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, all, > > I'll be there if the meeting isn't cancelled. > > Best regards, > Niklas > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 11:54 AM Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> will we have a Semantics/Use Cases TF meeting tomorrow? I'd like to continue the discussion about unasserted assertions from last Friday. >> >> In a reply to Niklas from Monday [0] I Iayed out in some detail why I think that there is a serious problem with the current proposals and how I think it can be solved. Slight modification to [0]: it occurred to me that the two different versions of syntactic sugar for asserted and unasserted occurrence terms, eg <<... >> and <<<... >>>, need to be mapped to two different primitives in gofo RDF: asserted occurrences need to be mapped to n-ary relations (qualifying the assertion), but unasserted occurrences (unlike what I propose in [0]) should be mapped to standard reification. >> >> Best, >> Thomas >> >> >> [0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0002.html >
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2024 14:44:42 UTC