Re: RDF* semantics


On fredag 30 augusti 2019 kl. 16:43:34 CEST Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> Olaf, Kingsley, others --
> Perhaps instead of the overloaded ex:claims predicate now
> being hammered at, and I think distracting from the meatier
> subjects at hand, you might switch to using an example
> predicate like ex:asserts which local-part is at least
> *less* over-loaded and hopefully therefore more clearly
> and intuitively understood?

An excellent suggestion! ;-)


> I am suggesting this in significant part because I like
> to think and speak of triples/quads as assertions, which
> obviously have provenance (e.g., the asserter, at a place,
> at a time, in a document), among other attributes.
> I dislike thinking or speaking of triples/quads as facts,
> because facts do not typically have provenance as such --
> they simply *are* -- and because triples/quads can be just
> as easily used to encode falsehoods and nonsensicals as
> truths (e.g.,
>    { PREFIX  ex:  <#>
>      ex:the_sea  ex:is    ex:boiling_hot .
>      ex:pigs     ex:have  ex:wings .
>    }
> ),
> and the simple (ahem) fact that such statements have been
> encoded as triples/quads should not be sufficient to
> indicate that they are (or ever have been, or ever will
> be) true -- nor even *asserted* to be true.
> (I might, for instance, encode a number of falsehoods as
> triples within a named graph, which is then used to test
> whether other named graphs should be considered more or
> less trustworthy, based on the number of such falsehoods
> contained in the graph under test.)
> (Who is this "Ted" guy?  I've been employed by OpenLink
> Software, working with Kingsley et al since late 2000, and
> involved in a number of W3 XGs, CGs, and WGs in that time.
> Recent highlights include late-term co-chairing of the
> SHACL WG, and active contributions to the Verifiable Claims
> WG and the Credentials CG.)
> Regards,
> Ted

Received on Sunday, 1 September 2019 18:47:15 UTC