Re: Two profiles: technical definition

On 2 May 2024, at 16:24, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes. We could also enforce a syntactic restriction directly, so to avoid the introduction of inconsistent graph in simple RDF.
—e.

> 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 14:54:14 UTC