- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 07:37:21 -0400
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 7/5/24 06:20, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > [...] > > Graphs are simply not on the table. We have to find a solution that doesn’t rely on graphs as a means to demarcate and disambiguate. Otherwise I would just refer to the Nested Named Graphs proposal from last automn [0] and be done with it. That said, I’m glad Antoine commented on how you characterize graphs and their semantics. Graphs have to be on the table. Triples by themselves are neither asserted or unasserted. Well, actually, "assert" isn't defined at all in RDF even though it does show up in the semantics document - it probably is a good idea to rephrase most of these occurrences. But the intent seems clear - a triple (or a group of triples, maybe) is asserted in an RDF graph if and only if it (or they) are members of the RDF graph. So there is no assertion without reference to an RDF graph, and certainly no global notion of a triple (or even an RDF graph) being asserted or not. So "unasserted assertion" is not something that comes from RDF. If anyone wants to talk about it then they need to provide a definition in terms of what is actually in RDF. peter
Received on Friday, 5 July 2024 11:37:27 UTC