- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 10:59:20 -0500
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 1/14/25 10:47 AM, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > > >> On 14. Jan 2025, at 16:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >> The question is not whether this is intuitive, but whether it can be part of RDF. So don't ask whether something should intuitively imply, but whether it should imply in RDF. >> >> It is, however, the case that if something doesn't intuitively imply then it is unlikely that it should imply in RDF. > > Likewise, if it inuitively implies it also should imply in RDF. Not so at all. You appear to be saying that RDF should contain all the intuitive implications of things that are said in RDF. This cannot be the case as the intuitive implications of statements depend on our intuitive meaning of the identifiers that we use. If on the other hand you are excluding the intuitive meaning of the identifiers then sure, but that's not how you are arguing. peter
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2025 15:59:26 UTC