- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:05:10 +0000
- To: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- CC: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
There is only one graph. > On 25 Jul 2024, at 15:59, James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com> wrote: > > good morning; > >>> On 25. Jul 2024, at 09:41, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 25 Jul 2024, at 15:18, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> I never said that. >> I said that a reifier denotes an existing resource in the graph. >> A reifier reifies a triple term, and it represents the induced resource by the triple term. >> In our example, >> :e1 rdf:reifies <<(:a1 :transaction :a2)>>. >> :e2 rdf:reifies <<(:a1 :transaction :a2)>>. >> :e1, :e2 a :transaction. >> there are two transactions, denoted by the two reifiers of the same triple term. >> The triple structure of the triple term it reifies does not necessarily appear as a triple in the graph. >> But It could, if you want to have it in the graph: >> :a1 :transaction :a2. >> But this triple in the graph is by no means “identifying” a transaction (in fact, we know that it “relates” to at least two transactions). >> So, the graph says that there are two transactions (:e1 and :e2, both between :a1 and :a2), and that the (one) triple :a1 :transaction :a2. is a true fact the graph. > > "the graph" is which graph? > is it the one which includes the first three statements or the one which includes also the fourth statement? > > yes, that may be self-evident to the author, but the sentence is ambiguous. > this is, unfortunately, typical of many of the discussions here. > >> >> For my terminology, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0096.html >> >> —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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2024 14:05:17 UTC