- From: William Waites <wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:37:28 +0100
- To: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
> 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).
>
> > > :Alice :asserts << :Bob foaf:age"23"^^xsd:integer >> .
Does that imply a rule that says,
{ ?s ?p << ?ss ?pp ??oo >> } <=>
{ ?s ?p [ rdf:subject ?ss; rdf:predicate ?pp rdf:object ?oo ] }.
or do you have a different idea of `semantic equivalence' in mind?
William Waites | wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk
Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation
School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2019 09:38:00 UTC