Re: RDF* semantics

On 8/6/19 11:12 AM, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 13:52 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> [...]
>> Under what circumstances in the real-world would the condition you model
>> arise i.e., propositions that don't manifest as part of documentation?
> For instance, we my want to capture that Alice told us that Bob's age is
> 23, even if we don't have a document from Alice with this
> statement/claim regarding Bob's age.


Through what medium did Alice make the aforementioned claim about Bob?

How is provenance articulated in said medium?


>
> Another example: we may want to capture that we do not believe that
> Bob's age is 23, which is independent of whether there exist a document
> making the claim about Bob's age or not.
>
>> All sentences/statements are inscribed to documents that have provenance
>> oriented properties such as date, time, author etc..
>>
>> What I am trying to articulate here is that its a combination of the
>> sentence and document (in which they are inscribed) that brings
>> authority (or lack thereof) to a proposition represented as an RDF
>> sentence/statement.
>>
>> The triple:
>>
>> @prefix : <#> .
>>
>> :bob foaf:age "23"^^xsd:integer . 
>>
>> Exists in a document identified by <> , so we a missing the following part
>> of reality (as I understand it):
>>
>> @prefix : <#> . 
>>
>> <> a foaf:Document .
>> <> :creator :i .
>> <> :createdOn "2019-08-05"^^xsd:date . 
>> <> foaf:primaryTopic :bob. 
>>
>> :bob foaf:age "23"^^xsd:integer . 
>>
>>
>> Thus, it's the authoritative weight given to <>, by whoever, under whatever
>> situation and circumstance, that leads to acceptance or rejection of the
>> claims outlined e.g., those about the foaf:age of the entity identified
>> by :bob .
> I am not questioning that. Note, however, that your document is not
> making a statement/claim about the claim regarding Bob's age (other than
> asserting it, of course).


The document is the medium through which those claims are projected. Put
differently, it provides the surface for the claim represented as
sentences/statements.


>  The purpose of RDF*, and of RDF reification,
> is to allow you to do so (within your document or within another of your
> documents).


I understand the RDF reification part since it allows one speak directly
about units of communication or "parts of speach" (subject, predicate,
and object components of RDF sentences/statements) using documentation,
just like anything else.

At this juncture, I see RDF* as being about an algorithm (delivered as
syntax sugar) for attempting to address the verbosity of  existing RDF
reification syntax rather than dealing with new RDF semantics.

Anyway, that's why "RDF* semantics" is confusing to me with regards to
its fundamental objective at this point in time.

Kingsley

>
> Best,
> Olaf
>
>> If we get the world we a modeling for clear, other bits of the problem
>> will become clearer.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> In my opinion, we need a complete example that's relatable to the world
>> that we are describing using RDF sentences :)
>>
>

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen       
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   
Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
              http://kidehen.blogspot.com

Profile Pages:
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
        : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this