- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:24:55 -0400
- To: Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
My view is that triples are like complex numbers or cartesian coordinates in that there are no non-trivial equalities between them. So just like the complex number equality (5, 7) = (5, ?x) implies ?x=7 <:a :b 7> = <:a :b ?x> implies ?x=7 and not like fractions where 5/7 = ?y/?x does not imply that ?y=5 and ?x=7 I can't imagine a view of triples that has non-trivial equalities. What would mean to say that two semantically-different triples are equal? For example, how could a generalized triple equality like <2 3 4> = <4 6 8> be true? peter On 7/18/24 18:20, Doerthe Arndt wrote: > Dear Peter, > > I am aware of the consequences of making RE injective, I just really do not see why we need that. So, to answer directly: > >> Am 18.07.2024 um 20:34 schrieb Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>: >> >> Suppose we don't include the injection and we have (in an extension of RDF with equality and inequality) >> >> :a /= :a1 . >> <:a :b :c> = <:a1 :b :c> . >> >> i.e., <:a :b :c> and <:a1 :b :c> have different components but nonetheless are the same triple. >> >> Does this ever make sense? If not, then why not include the injection? > > For me, that does make sense. We talk about a triple term, it could mean anything just like an iri. > But I really like that you share your point of view and your expectations here. So for you, that it would be desirable to not allow the above? > >> >> >> Suppose we have (in RDFS++) >> >> <:a :b :c> owl:sameAs <:a1 :b1 :c1> . >> >> Should this entail >> >> :a owl:sameAs :a1 . >> :b owl:sameAs :b1 . >> :c owl:sameAs :c1 . >> >> That is, the same triple has the same components. > > No, in my opinion, it should not entail that these things are equal. I even consider that counter-intuitive to get these entailments. But I am willing to adopt if that is what we want and need as a group. I really like that we talk about expectations we have. I think we should even collect such expectations, to be able to test our final proposal on these. > >> >> If so, then you have the injection. > > I know, but for me that is an argument against the injection. > > > Thank you for your answer. > > Kind regards, > Dörthe > > >> >> peter >> >
Received on Friday, 19 July 2024 13:25:01 UTC