Re: Two profiles: technical definition

Hi Enrico,

I have one more observation regarding the "functional opaque" profile.
Can you please confirm whether this observation is correct.

By the given definitions, there is no syntactic restriction that
enforces the many-to-one cardinality constraint for rdf:edge
relationships. I mean, it would still be possible to have an RDF graph
that contains both of the following two triples:

 ( :r, rdf:edge, (:s1, :p1, :o1) )
 ( :r, rdf:edge, (:s2, :p2, :o2) )

What the given definitions of the "functional opaque" profile provide
is that there exists no interpretation that is a model of such an RDF
graph. Correct?

Thanks,
Olaf


On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 07:05 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> 
> (I repeat a previous email, which could have been lost within a
> previous thread)
> 
> In order to make the upcoming discussion more concrete and technical,
> I have written down the formal definition of two profiles in the
> wiki:
> RDF-star profile “transparent” (namely many-to-many transparent)
> RDF-star profile "functional opaque” (namely many-to-one opaque)
> They rely on two distinct properties - rdf:reifies and rdf:edge
> (temporary name) - and on two distinct syntactic categories -
> tripleTerm and opaqueTripleTerm.
> Technically, they could be just merged into a unique profile, which
> actually could be RDF-star itself.
> 
> —e.

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2024 14:24:30 UTC