Re: Proposal: described vs stated triple terms

Hi Andy,

that is exactly how I see it, but Enrico’s responses to Gregory Williams [0] and the RDF/LPG wikipage [1] they refer to seem to suggest a different reading. 

Best,
Thomas


[0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0115.html
[1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-and-LPGs

> On 25. Jul 2024, at 14:32, 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.
> 
> 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 12:57:17 UTC