W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > August 2019

Re: RDF* semantics

From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:19:56 +0000
To: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
CC: thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
Message-ID: <1758270.kuIsGaOek9@porty3>
Thomas,

On fredag 30 augusti 2019 kl. 19:03:16 CEST thomas lörtsch wrote:
> Am 30. August 2019 14:04:32 MESZ schrieb Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>:
> > [...]
> >
> > <http://example.org/Alice>  rdf:type  foaf:Person .
> > <http://example.org/Alice>  foaf:name  "Alice" .
> > <http://example.org/Alice>  :claims  <http://example.org/Bob> .
> > <http://example.org/Bob>  rdf:type  foaf:Person .
> > <http://example.org/Bob>  foaf:name  "Bob" .
> > <http://example.org/Bob>  foaf:age "23"^^xsd:integer .
> >
> >Perhaps now it becomes more apparent that, according to this data,
> >person Alice claims the person Bob (who is of age 23). This is
> >different than saying that person Alice makes the following claim:
> >the thing denoted by IRI is a person named Bob who is of age 23.
> 
> No, it's the same.

To me it's not the same.

> The situation may change when you want to describe
> Alice's claiming activity. Claiming something as such is no different from
> liking, being located in etc. You wouldn't insist on putting the objects of
> such statements in parentheses. Something like
> 
>     ex:Alice ex:likes [ a foaf:Person; foaf:name "Bob" ]
> 
> would be perfectly alright, wouldn't it?

Assuming that the IRI ex:Alice is supposed to denote a person named Alice, 
then the natural interpretation of these example triples (at least for me) 
would be the following: Person Alice likes a person named Bob. Again, for me 
that's different from saying: Person Alice likes that there exists a person 
named Bob.

Olaf
 

> Actually we had a similar discussion already a few mails back and we agreed
> (I think) that you can model everything with pure triples. You don't *need*
> meta modelling (I never thought I would write that one day) if you nest
> your triples deep enough, although abstraction through meta modelling
> certainly can be very helpful. If the conversation itself is about meta
> modelling then it can be had with pure basic triples.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Thomas

Received on Friday, 30 August 2019 19:20:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 30 August 2019 19:20:25 UTC