Re: RDF* semantics

Hi William,

I explicitly said "semantically equivalent" rather than just "equivalent." 
Hence, what I meant is that the given RDF* triple should be interpreted to 
have the same meaning as the the given set of five RDF triples (i.e., they 
represents the same information).


On måndag 2 september 2019 kl. 09:56:39 CEST William Waites wrote:
> > When considering RDF* as an abstract data model, the RDF* triple
> > (written in Turtle* syntax, prefix declarations omitted)
> > 
> >   :Alice :asserts << :Bob foaf:age"23"^^xsd:integer >> .
> > 
> > should be semantically equivalent to the following set of five RDF
> > triples (assuming we use RDF* in SA mode)...
> Hi Olaf,
> I'm confused. I read in the documents explaining RDF* that there is now a
> new kind of object, a Triple, in addition to the ones that we already know
> about, IRIs, Literals and Blank Nodes. It explains that a Triple lives in
> the set
>     (IRI ⋃ BN ⋃ T) x IRI x (IRI ⋃ BN ⋃ L ⋃ T)
> defined in a suitable recursive way. I understand that, and it makes sense.
> Your message confuses me because it's unclear in what sense one triple is
> equivalent to a set of five triples. Maybe I'm just dense. Is a triple in
> RDF* a new kind of object or is it just an extension of the Turtle language
> to make it more convenient to write down reification?
> Best wishes,
> William Waites |
> Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation
> School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

Received on Monday, 2 September 2019 15:13:12 UTC