- From: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 23:15:36 +1030
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACusdfT564aUeMiZSgwqOOS=Ue7qCO1Vc6_5sWJBFb7e5tatBg@mail.gmail.com>
Ok great, cheers for collaborating.
And haha yes, let's avoid the subproperties.
Regards
Anthony
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:40 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2021 12:58, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>
> One last stab. Could it be as simple as "Triples and statements of
> triples"?
>
> _:a :statementOf << :s :p :o >> ;
> :in <file1.ttl> ;
> dct:creator :alice.
> _:b :statementOf << :s :p :o >> ;
> :in <file2.ttl> ;
> dct:creator :bob.
>
> It matches the RDF reification vocabulary
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#reification> in my opinion.
>
> yes, it makes sense.
>
> Examples of subproperties if wanting to be more specific:
> writtenStatementOf, verbalStatementOf, etc.
>
> worms! wooOORMS! XD
>
> (but yes, that also makes sense)
>
>
> Regards
> Anthony
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 7:42 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
> pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anthony,
>>
>> I am not a big fan about "refersTo", and actually I am having second
>> thoughts about "mentions" as well, at least in the use-case addressed by
>> example 8 [1] in the CG report. The reason is that "mention" (and, to some
>> extent, "reference") points to the use-mention distinction [2]. However,
>> the intended meaning of the example was that the triple was actually *used*
>> in file1.ttl and file2.ttl, not merely mentioned...
>>
>> I guess this means that we would probably need two distinct referentially
>> opaque properties: useOf and mentionOf. And here's another worm out of the
>> can...
>>
>> pa
>>
>> [1]
>> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#occurrences-example
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction
>> On 15/12/2021 08:18, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>
>> I had one more thought actually, I think I can take it to its logical
>> conclusion. Perhaps the pair should be:
>>
>> occurrenceOf (referentially transparent)
>> refersTo (referentially opaque)
>>
>> The domain of the second would be References, which themselves can be
>> referred to, and so on.
>>
>> References refer to things, and the relevant section of the report
>> changes from “Triples and occurrences” to “Triples and references to
>> triples”.
>>
>> In any case the point is to clear the way for the use of “occurrenceOf”
>> in a referentially transparent way rather than the way it’s used now.
>>
>> And yes, sorry, side message with Pat.
>>
>> Regards
>> Anthony
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 5:28 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
>> pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15/12/2021 05:45, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that the `:occurenceOf` predicate in the CG report is just an
>>>> *example*, it has no "official" standing in the CG report. Yes, I avoided
>>>> that term in order to avoid confusion with the discussion in the report,
>>>> but I do not consider any term as definitely taken. "occurrence" vs.
>>>> "literalOccurrence" would be fine by me, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Note however that we have tried, in the RDF-star group, to coin a
>>>> general vocabulary for occurrences... but we failed to reach consensus
>>>> after a long discussion, and decided to defer that to the future working
>>>> group. This is a nasty can of worms, with a lot of subtle distinctions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I've found the right discussions you're right about it being a can of
>>> worms (169 <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/169>, 170
>>> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/170>, 209
>>> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/209> etc). I read through them
>>> and still think that "occurrenceOf" is preferable to "realizationOf". After
>>> some thought, and also heeding Pat's advice about avoiding the use of
>>> "literal",
>>>
>>> did I miss some message in the thread? Or are you referring to another
>>> discussion with Pat?
>>>
>>> maybe the relations of concern could be:
>>>
>>> occurrenceOf (referentially transparent)
>>> mentionOf (referentially opaque)
>>>
>>> I like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the dictionary, a "mention" is "a reference to someone or
>>> something". Every time I talk about a triple, whether in writing or speech,
>>> can be described as a mention of that triple.
>>>
>>> So my proposal in this thread is something more targeted: a property
>>>> whose domain is restricted a given Event class (although, as Peter Rivett
>>>> poinrted out, schema:Event is maybe not the most appropriate one).
>>>>
>>>
>>> There has been lots of discussion
>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2018Jun/0013.html>
>>> (that I've been a part of) where people would like to broaden the scope of
>>> schema:Event to include such things as historical events and notable time
>>> periods. If schema:Event were to use the dictionary definition in its
>>> description ("a thing that happens or takes place, especially one of
>>> importance") then it might solve those problems and also be the domain for
>>> "occurrenceOf".
>>>
>>> Good to know, thanks for the pointer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:34 AM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
>>> pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14/12/2021 14:41, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. What I like about the "realization" pattern (or any similar
>>>>> pattern involving quoted triples) is that it keeps a link between the
>>>>> complex construct (the event) and the simple triple (asserted or not).
>>>>>
>>>>> pa
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a good solution that preserves all the information.
>>>>
>>>> In place of "realizationOf" I'd like to suggest renaming it to
>>>> "occurrenceOf". If we're discussing reoccurring relationships then each
>>>> Event is an occurrence of that relationship.
>>>>
>>>> As a follow-on I'd also suggest renaming the existing
>>>> <https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#occurrences>
>>>> "occurrenceOf" relation to "literalOccurrenceOf" (and possibly
>>>> renaming that section of the report to "Triples and literal occurrences of
>>>> triples").
>>>>
>>>> Note that the `:occurenceOf` predicate in the CG report is just an
>>>> *example*, it has no "official" standing in the CG report. Yes, I avoided
>>>> that term in order to avoid confusion with the discussion in the report,
>>>> but I do not consider any term as definitely taken. "occurrence" vs.
>>>> "literalOccurrence" would be fine by me, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Note however that we have tried, in the RDF-star group, to coin a
>>>> general vocabulary for occurrences... but we failed to reach consensus
>>>> after a long discussion, and decided to defer that to the future working
>>>> group. This is a nasty can of worms, with a lot of subtle distinctions.
>>>> So my proposal in this thread is something more targeted: a property
>>>> whose domain is restricted a given Event class (although, as Peter Rivett
>>>> poinrted out, schema:Event is maybe not the most appropriate one).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Anthony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:45 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
>>>> pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/12/2021 05:33, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Idea:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> define a schema:realizationOf property, whose domain is schema:Event
>>>>>> and range is rdf-star:Triple (with an inverse property schema:realization).
>>>>>> The above could be expressed in JSON-LD-star [1] as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> "@context": "https://schema.org/" <https://schema.org/>,
>>>>>> "@type": "Event",
>>>>>> "realizationOf": { "@id": {
>>>>>> "@id": "#bowls_club",
>>>>>> "captain": "#bob"
>>>>>> }},
>>>>>> "startDate": "01-01-2019",
>>>>>> "endDate": "31-12-2019"
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>> That works. Although when stating this I think the start and end dates
>>>>> should also be in the RDF-star triple. If the dates aren't there then the
>>>>> event is adding information to the triple, whereas I think the intention of
>>>>> "realization of" is to show a one-to-one mapping, is that right?
>>>>>
>>>>> no, see below
>>>>>
>>>>> If the intention isn't a one-to-one mapping then it's sort of saying
>>>>> "instance of", where the only thing differentiating instances is the time
>>>>> period, which implies that all standard RDF triples without start and end
>>>>> times are implicit *types* of events (also makes sense to me).
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, this is the idea behind my examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that, by design, RDF-star does not support the one-to-one
>>>>> mapping, because quoted triples are (roughly) like IRIs or literals: they
>>>>> represent the *same thing* everywhere they appear. This is discussed in the
>>>>> CG report [1].
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [
>>>>>> a :TenuredOfficeEvent ;
>>>>>> schema:name "Presidency of the United States"@en ;
>>>>>> :hasTermStartYear "1885"^^xsd:gYear ;
>>>>>> :hasTermEndYear "1889"^^xsd:gYear ;
>>>>>> :hasOfficer dbpedia:Grover_Cleveland
>>>>>> ] schema:author [
>>>>>> a schema:Person;
>>>>>> schema:worksFor <
>>>>>> https://www.whitehouse.gov/#this>
>>>>>> ] ;
>>>>>> schema:publisher <https://www.whitehouse.gov/#this> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [
>>>>>> a :TenuredOfficeEvent ;
>>>>>> schema:name "Presidency of the United States"@en ;
>>>>>> :hasTermStartYear "1893"^^xsd:gYear ;
>>>>>> :hasTermEndYear "1897"^^xsd:gYear ;
>>>>>> :hasOfficer dbpedia:Grover_Cleveland
>>>>>> ] schema:author [
>>>>>> a schema:Person;
>>>>>> schema:worksFor <
>>>>>> https://www.whitehouse.gov/#this>
>>>>>> ] ;
>>>>>> schema:publisher <https://www.whitehouse.gov/#this> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Turtle End ##
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Key point:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No reification required, courtesy of RDF's fundamental essence :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kingsley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That works, although it's less flexible because it interleaves
>>>>> concepts. For it to be fully understood a reasoner has to understand
>>>>> "Presidency of the United States" rather than simpler concepts that can be
>>>>> reused like "is President of" and "United States". Composition over
>>>>> inheritance
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance> could
>>>>> probably make the design simpler, but yeah it works for sure too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. What I like about the "realization" pattern (or any similar
>>>>> pattern involving quoted triples) is that it keeps a link between the
>>>>> complex construct (the event) and the simple triple (asserted or not).
>>>>>
>>>>> pa
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#occurrences
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, modeling would be much cleaner and more complete if all
>>>>> statements could have start and end time positions, and ideally a location
>>>>> position, then every statement has the _option_ of being scoped in space
>>>>> and time. The modeling of recurring events then falls out of that and
>>>>> people could either do it Kingsley's way with events or just use statements
>>>>> with start and end times, whichever they prefer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:43 AM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
>>>>> pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/12/2021 04:05, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreeing with Dan here, you could argue that any instance of
>>>>>> schema:Event is also an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking Simon's example:
>>>>>> Bob - is captain of - Bowls Club - Jan 1, 2019–Dec 31, 2019
>>>>>> Bob - is captain of - Bowls Club - Jan 1, 2020–Dec 31, 2020
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems equivalent to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> schema:Event
>>>>>> Bob's captaincy of Bowls Club 2019
>>>>>> startTime: Jan 1, 2019
>>>>>> endTime: Dec 31, 2019
>>>>>>
>>>>>> schema:Event
>>>>>> Bob's captaincy of Bowls Club 2020
>>>>>> startTime: Jan 1, 2020
>>>>>> endTime: Dec 31, 2020
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idea:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> define a schema:realizationOf property, whose domain is schema:Event
>>>>>> and range is rdf-star:Triple (with an inverse property schema:realization).
>>>>>> The above could be expressed in JSON-LD-star [1] as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> "@context": "https://schema.org/" <https://schema.org/>,
>>>>>> "@type": "Event",
>>>>>> "realizationOf": { "@id": {
>>>>>> "@id": "#bowls_club",
>>>>>> "captain": "#bob"
>>>>>> }},
>>>>>> "startDate": "01-01-2019",
>>>>>> "endDate": "31-12-2019"
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (assuming that "realization" and "captain" are part of the schema.org
>>>>>> context)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The annotation syntax could also be used, if bob was *currently*
>>>>>> captain of the club:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> "@context": "https://schema.org/" <https://schema.org/>,
>>>>>> "@id": "#bowls_club",
>>>>>> "captain": {
>>>>>> "@id": "#bob",
>>>>>> "@annotation": {
>>>>>> "realization": {
>>>>>> "@type": "Event",
>>>>>> "startDate": "01-01-2021",
>>>>>> "endDate": "31-12-2021"
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://json-ld.github.io/json-ld-star/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: in case anyone is wondering, the Turtle-star corresponding to the
>>>>>> above JSON-LD-star would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [] a s:Event ;
>>>>>> s:realizationOf << <#bowls_club> s:captain <#bob> >> ;
>>>>>> s:startDate "01-01-2019"^^s:Date ;
>>>>>> s:endDate "31-12-2019"^^s:Date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <#bowls_club> s:captain <#bob> {|
>>>>>> s:realization [
>>>>>> a s:Event ;
>>>>>> s:startDate "01-01-2019"^^s:Date ;
>>>>>> s:endDate "31-12-2019"^^s:Date
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> |}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems natural to me that every triple should have start and end
>>>>>> time positions and possibly also a location position. The above examples
>>>>>> seem to me like different ways of saying the same thing, albeit the first
>>>>>> has more structure. You could argue that schema:Event is just a convenience
>>>>>> type for statements with temporal data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YAGO knowledge base is a good example:
>>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370212000719
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 8:20 AM Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <
>>>>>> Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Captain of the bowls club is another example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I was in one of these the other day admiring the wooden honour
>>>>>>> boards – the same names come up repeatedly but not necessary sequentially.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 9 December, 2021 22:57
>>>>>>> *To:* public-rdf-star@w3.org
>>>>>>> *Subject:* OnAgainOffAgain relations - beyond celeb marriage: Org
>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The celebrity re-marriage example is interesting and real, but may
>>>>>>> look a bit artificial or cornercase. A similarly structured situation is
>>>>>>> much more common - membership of organizations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example one organization being a member of another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q51698517 is the International Fact
>>>>>>> Checking Network (IFCN). It has a notion of membership grounded in review
>>>>>>> of members w.r.t. their official principles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verified signatories are e.g.
>>>>>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30325238 (Full Fact). There are some
>>>>>>> organizations such as Snopes (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2287154)
>>>>>>> who were once members (verified signatories) but who are not currently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikidata uses annotations on a
>>>>>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P463 edge between IFCN and
>>>>>>> Snopes to give start/end times (
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 15 April 2017, 5 June 2019). It also points to evidence/source
>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I know Snopes have only been members once, but if they
>>>>>>> were to rejoin it seems Wikidata could accomodate the task of representing
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until I learn a better name for it that isn't too grandiose, I am
>>>>>>> calling these "on again, off again" relationships, in honour of the
>>>>>>> celebrity marriage/divorce usecase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p.s. another example, not quite notable enough for Wikidata to
>>>>>>> record:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I (https://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q56641640) have twice been a
>>>>>>> member of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7552326 (AISB - Society
>>>>>>> for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour). But
>>>>>>> then I have multiple times lived in the U.K., or been in various
>>>>>>> restaurants; how do we scope RDF-Star's applicability? Which of these are
>>>>>>> reasonable places it could be used for time-scoped relationships?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2021 12:46:04 UTC