Re: Proposal: described vs stated triple terms

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 2:32 PM Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Yes to all of that.

> 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.

I agree, this informal use seems clear enough.

> 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.

Agree with this too. (I think it corresponds to saying "predicate"
about the use of a property as a predicate.)

Best regards,
Niklas


>         Andy
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2024 12:56:02 UTC