Re: RDF* semantics

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