- From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:45:12 +0000
- To: thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- CC: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>, "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
Thomas, On lördag 31 augusti 2019 kl. 00:40:24 CEST thomas lörtsch wrote: > > On 30. Aug 2019, at 22:41, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> > > wrote: > > > > Thomas, > > > > I think the important part of Olaf's answer is the one you skipped, > > > > with property domain range: > > :claims a rdf:Property . > > :claims rdfs:domain foaf:Person . > > :claims rdfs:range foaf:Person . > > > > this was your usage of :claims property, and it makes no sense to > > "claim a person" (?!). > > That was Olaf's idea in his mail from 30. Aug 2019, at 10:30 Just for the record: it was not my idea to use the :claims property in the sense of "claiming a person." Instead, Kingsley's initial examples have been using it in this way. > [...] > Well, Kingsley introduced the property :claims and it was pretty clear that > he meant it as a synonym for :asserts. Olaf as cited above claimed that > :claim here can only be interpreted as :demandsOwnership (why he is so sure > about that - because of the syntactic structure - I’m not really sure). The reason is the following (as I have tried to make clear a couple of times now): Kingsley's initial examples used the property :claims as the predicate of a triple that had a blank node _:b2 in the object position. So, _:b2 represents the thing that was meant to be claimed. Then, the example data contained another triple saying that _:b2 is of rdf:type foaf:Person. Hence, the thing being claimed is a person. Therefore, I think it is natural to interpret that property :claims in the sense of demanding ownership rather than asserting. > [...] > I think we should get back to discussing RDF* ;-) I agree. Olaf
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2019 18:45:40 UTC