Re: RDF* and conjectures

good afternoon;

> On 2021-09-18, at 11:49:24, Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it> wrote:
> 
> Dear James, 
> 
>>>> yes, absent a definition for dataset construction, there is no way to interpret the chronology example.
>>>> post-3.8, why does that matter?
>>> 
>>> So let me clarify this: 3.8 suggests we use a ASK WHERE query to verify the truth value of a graph. Thus I add a boolean statement to the example, say:  
>> 
>> more importantly and without regard to the specific consequences as to interpretation, 3.8 refers to a situation which demonstrates that, whichever question one asks,  if one defines how to merge graphs, it is possible to answer ones questions.
>> which of 3.1 -- 3.7 one chooses is (modulo issues of completeness and correctness) immaterial.
>> sparlq chooses one.
> 
> Allow me to rephrase. 
> 
> What you are saying is that, regardless of the semantics of named graphs (3.1 <-> 3.7) one may think they have chosen for their application,

i am unsure what you intend your formulation to mean.
i do not claim "regardless of the semantics".
i suggest that one can choose a definition - from among 3.1--3.7 or elsewhere, given which an interpretation of a given question is possible in the context of the constructed dataset.
this is more a matter of "dependent on", rather than "regardless" (given its possible connotation of "independent of").

> if they are using sparql at all they will end up with 3.8 anyway, because the sparql part will use it regardless of opinions and wishes. 

yes, because a combination follows from sparql's conformance requirements.
one could choose some other combination.
one would then have a different query language.
dealer's choice.

best regards, from berlin,

Received on Saturday, 18 September 2021 10:37:22 UTC