- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:25:48 -0700
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "Lassila, Ora" <ora@amazon.com>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 3:14 PM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > Indeed there is a sloppiness: I should have changed the attribute “name” to “person”. Is this now better? > :enrico denotes me as a person. > >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :date 1962 . >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :location :rome . >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :location :rome . >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :date 1962 . It helps with the issue of naming, but it doesn’t address the asymmetry. Now Enrico has married-in and married-on properties, and the reification has date and location properties. Why is this a good model of properties that all come from the same relation where they are all properties of birth certificates? And I still think this is a fundamental problem with this example: “two departments decide to expose this data as LOD, but in different ways.” That would be one thing if they were each exposing LOD using local identifiers, but they’ve both used the universal identifiers (b1, b2, …) for the reification in incompatible ways. Thanks, Greg
Received on Monday, 25 March 2024 23:26:05 UTC