Re: owl:sameAs/referential opacity Re: Can RDFstar be defined as only syntactic sugar on top of RDF (Re: weakness of embedded triples)

> On 18. Nov 2020, at 15:07, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
> 
> On 17/11/2020 23:18, thomas lörtsch wrote:
> 
>> Just a quick check:
>> 
>>> On 17. Nov 2020, at 18:11, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>> […]
>> 
>>>> +
>>>> 
>>>> Both "modes" used side by side would solve this problem:
>>>> 
>>>>  << :a :b :c >> :denies :d .
>>>>  :a :b :c {| :exclaims :e |}
>>>> 
>>> No, because his concrete syntax would produce exactly the same abstract syntax as your previous example -- at least in my understanding, but I trust that Olaf would agree (see https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/9#issuecomment-708608422).
>>> 
>>> From the very beginning, embedded triples in RDF* are totally identified by their subject+predicate+object, there is now way to distinguish different mentions (tokens) of the same triple.
>> You mean
>>>>  :a :b :c {| :d :e |}
>> is meant to annotate all triple tokens of type
>>  :a :b :c .
>> everywhere, anywhere?
> 
> As Peter pointed out in his reply, RDF* does not have any notion of "triple token", only that of "triple type" (so to speak).
> 
> So the example above is not "meant to annotate all triple tokens", but meant to annotate this one triple (type).

This answer doesn’t help me as in my terminology "triple" and "triple (type)" refer to very different things. Let’s try another terminology: types of triples versus occurrences of triples. A triple of type
 :a :b :c .
can occurr in different graphs. Graphs are defined as sets of triples and therefor any triple can occurr only once per graph.

Imagine the following RDF* graph, consisting of only one annotated statement:

 :a :b :c {| :d :e |}

Does the annotation ':d :e' annotate
1) that specific occurrence of ':a :b :c' in the same graph or
2) some occurrence of ':a :b :c' but it doesn’t define which or
3) any occurrence of ':a :b :c' in all graphs ?

I assume it’s option 2 but I’m not sure.

Thomas


>>> As I understand, this was a deliberate design choice.
>> And with what rationale?
> 
> I can't talk for Olaf. My guess is that it was deemed simpler, and sufficient for most use cases.
> 
> Maybe also it was considered as the less disruptive change to RDF. Consider the following Turtle:
> 
>   :a :b :c, :x.
>   :a :b :c, :y.
> 
> The two occurrences of ":a :b :c" in that concrete syntax are "squashed" into the same triple in the abstract syntax. RDF itself does not distinguish different tokens of the same triple. Why should RDF*?
> 
> Finally, if you want to track different "utterances" of the same triple, nothing prevents you to write
> 
> :a :b :c {|
>   :utterance [ :by :alice; :on "2020-11-10" ],
>     [ :by :bob; :on "2020-11-13" ]
> |}
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thomas
> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>