Re: Proposal: described vs stated triple terms

Am 25. Juli 2024 15:41:14 MESZ schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>:
>
>
>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.

can you please define "induce"? is that term in any way related to "entail"? 

>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.

you should have answered james' question

. t

>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2024 14:21:33 UTC