Re: Proposal: described vs stated triple terms

> On 25. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> 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].

Well, the contradiction is that you talk about a reified statement as if it was asserted in a graph, but you call it optional if it is actually asserted.

.t

> 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 13:18:28 UTC