- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:11:37 +0200
- To: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
> On 2021-09-17, at 10:43:39, Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it> wrote: > >> ... > > The reading of [1] brings us to the conclusion that we DO NOT KNOW if named graphs are asserted. this assertion is an unfounded generalization. "has not been specified" does not have the same consequences as "do not know", especially in the sense of "cannot know", which underlies the discussion in this thread. > In fact, of the seven different (and reciprocally incompatible) semantics represented in [1], only one (3.4) behaves as if the content of the named graph is not asserted. which leaves this reader disappointedly with the impression that the discussion evidently ignores (3.8). (which impression agrees with his comprehension of the rdf-star deliberations, in general.) yes, absent a definition for dataset construction, there is no way to interpret the chronology example. post-3.8, why does that matter? best regards, from berlin,
Received on Friday, 17 September 2021 09:11:52 UTC