- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:00:27 +0000
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Hi Thomas, > 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. I happen to agree 100% with Andy’s email. I don’t see any contradiction with [0] and [1]. cheers —e. > [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 13:00:33 UTC