- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:32:23 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 25/07/2024 11:58, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> Hi Enrico,
>
> - you didn’t counter my argument that according to your interpretation of the current workline we now do not have a way to describe statements without asserting them
A graph is a set of triples.
A triple T is _asserted in a graph G_ if and only if T is a member of G.
This is the meaning of "asserted" prior to this working group.
As you said last Friday, we drop the "in a graph G" when the graph
clear, i..e only one graph under discussion.
The graph
<< :s :p :o >> :q :r .
is
_:B rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
_:B :q :r .
In this graph, the triple :s :p :o is not a member of the set of triples
making up the graph.
The triple :s :p :o is not asserted.
The triple via it's triple term is being described (especially when
transparent). For me, a "description of a triple" is fine informally - a
description of a thing is not the thing itself.
While understand that <<( )>> is the triple as a 3-tuple, I prefer
"triple term" for this usage as an RDF term to make it clear that the
triple is not an element of the set of triples making up the graph.
Andy
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2024 12:32:30 UTC