Re: [External] : Re: RDF is a framework, not a vocabulary

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 4:46 PM James Anderson
<anderson.james.1955@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> good afternoon;
>
> > On 12. Jul 2024, at 10:02, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 3:49 PM Souripriya Das
> > <souripriya.das@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >>> The technical argument is: it would be non-monotonic if you could annotate a triple with the remark that it is not asserted.
> >>
> >> I'd say that that "not asserted" in the "remark" is only interpreted in the context of the domain or application that the data creator is modelling ... it has nothing to do with RDF's notion of assertion of a triple.
> >
> > I agree. Just like it is up to the application how to treat e.g. an
> > assertion of `<x> :isMarriedTo <y>` in conjunction with `<x>
> > :isDivorcedWith <y>`. Some things cannot be true at once, but the core
> > of RDF does not come with the power to model that. That belongs to the
> > level of formal reasoning upon it (and/or pattern matching techniques
> > to detect it).
>
> there is a necessary distinction between "model" and "reason about" which this claim drops on the floor.

I'm sorry, I probably dropped precision rushing to a meeting. I could
try to rephrase it as "RDF alone only provides the fundamentals
for--but not the sufficient formal means to--specify how to define the
conditions for such a contradiction". But I suspect that's not enough;
so please do elaborate.

Best regards,
Niklas

>
> ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
>
>

Received on Friday, 12 July 2024 16:25:15 UTC