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

I note that RDF Concepts mentions "assert".   These mentions should be cleaned 
up and I believe that the notion of an asserted triple should be put (or maybe 
put back) into the document.

peter

PS:  Is there any reasonable way to see the occurrences of a phrase in older 
git versions of a document?


On 7/5/24 07:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 11:49:58 UTC