- From: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:15:24 +0200
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> On 9. Jul 2024, at 20:25, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > > >> On 9 Jul 2024, at 19:11, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de> wrote: >> >> I am still trying to understand the problem or more precisely, why it would not be enough to have your two predicates rdf:reifies and rdf:instantiates (as :says vs. :saysAndAsserts from the meeting) and simply say that >> >> :x rdf:instantiates << :s :p :o>>. >> >> entails (in some rdf-star entailment) >> >> :s :p :o. >> >> I am not sure that this would be what I want, but that is how I understand your proposal? > > This was exactly my point at our latest TF meeting. I still can’t understand why this wouldn’t be satisfactory. Aha, so we are in violent agreement? In the SemTF discussion last Friday I was understanding Dörthe’s ":says vs. :saysAndAsserts" as a reference to some domain ontology predicate ex:says. However, I seem to have misunderstood and she used those properties as synonyms for rdf12:reifies and rdf12:instantiates (the exact wording of which is of course not set in stone yet). In that case we do indeed seem to agree. Maybe you can complete the formalization I started, so that we can be sure? I tried! ;-) .t > —e.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 11:15:33 UTC