- From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:27:46 +0000
- To: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 00:00 -0500, Patrick J Hayes wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2019, at 3:56 AM, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> > > wrote: > > [...] > > In fact, in RDF* there is no need for such a naming convention > > because, when talking about a triple t'=(s,p,o) in some other > > triple t, the idea of RDF* is to directly use the triple t' itself > > instead of using a name for that triple. > > > > t = ( (s,p,o), p2, o2 ) > > I understand, and agree. But this does mean that your often-repeated > claim to somehow reduce RDF* to RDF reification is not accurate. RDF* > is a genuine extension to RDF. Indeed, it is an actual extension. So, you are right: Reducing RDF* to RDF reification requires the introduction of identifiers for triples, as a result of which the reification description is not semantically linked anymore to the described triple (due to the limitation of RDF reification). Thanks, Olaf
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 07:28:14 UTC