- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:10:19 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
I'm pretty sure that this semantics does not support O(:a :b _:c1) :e :f . entailing O(:a :b -:c2) :e :f . or O(:a :b :c) :e :f . entailing O(:a :b _:c) :e :f . Where O is for opaque triple terms. peter On 6/3/24 17:29, Franconi Enrico wrote: > Hi all, > as promised, I’ve prepared a document defining the current status of RDF-star, > according to what I understood from our latest chats. > It is mainly a merge of the two previous documents about the two profiles. > > The idea is that RDF with simple interpretations has two triple terms > (transparent and opaque) and unrestricted syntax for them. There is no other > adde special vocabulary. > On the other hand, RDF with RDF interpretations introduces the special > vocabulary for reification, restricts the syntax of triple terms as usual (the > “well formed” fragment), and specifies the functionality of the annotation in > the reification of opaque triple terms. > > You may notice that I changed rdf:annotationOf with rdf:hasAnnotation, in > order to allow for direct literal annotation to opaque triple terms - not > orthodox but useful I guess. > > Here it is: > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline" > <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline"> > > > Cheers > —e. > >
Received on Monday, 3 June 2024 23:10:25 UTC