- From: Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:49:58 +0000
- To: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
> On 23 Sep 2021, at 13:34, James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 2021-09-23, at 12:59:58, Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> Now let's come to named graphs. This situation is better from the syntactical point of view, since graph syntax is actually quite reasonable, but worse from the semantic point of view, since there is none accepted. > > is one to understand "none accepted" in the same sense as you described having understood "do not know"? in its etymological sense, none meaning 'not one': there is no single semantics approved. Zero or eight, both capture the idea behind 'none accepted'. I believe we can agree on this. From my (admittedly, limited) perspective, and limiting myself only on what is relevant to me, i.e., the truth value of the content of a graph, it seems that overwhelmingly the concrete attitude is that the content of a named graph is stated just as the content of the outside (the default graph). YMMV. So what we lack is a syntax and a semantics for non-stated graph content. Fabio -- Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone: +39 051 2094872 Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2021 12:50:15 UTC