Re: RDF* and conjectures

good morning;

> On 2021-09-24, at 10:12:34, Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it> wrote:
> 
> Dear [?],
> 
...
>>>>> 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. 
>> 
>> we are sceptical of the rhetorical consequence.
>> both chambers and the oed equate "not one" with "not any" in their principle entries for "none".
>> which leaves "zero" only.
> 
> You have an advantage over me by being a native speaker. I tried to compensate it by comparing you to an ancient Latin writer, though. ;-)

i would be more willing to go along with you if you were to draw parallels to joe friday.
at least our existences overlapped.

> 
>> would "no single universally agreed upon" be the notion you seek?
>> there is one which appears in the approved sparql recommendation.
>> that it is not universal does not mean it is not effective.
> 
> It's kind of convoluted, but it works.

then it serves the purpose.

>>> 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. 
>> 
>> is it possible to relate the statements that "the content of a named graph is stated just as the content of the outside (the default graph)" to the sparql's treatment of its target dataset?
> 
> After you shed light over 3.8, I have come to the conviction that whoever is using sparql is adopting sparql's semantics whether they are aware or not of the available options. 

does that change whether it satisfies the criteria of being "one"?

> 
>>> So what we lack is a syntax and a semantics for non-stated graph content.
>> 
>> the prevailing commentary concerning rdf-star to the contrary, there is no such thing as a non-stated graph.
> 
> Now you are pulling my leg. 

no, with the intent to implement systems which reason on the basis of rdf models, i seek to isolate facts.

> 
> Of course, I am not discussing about the existence of the graph: from context and general tone of the discussion, what is being discussed was and is the truth status of the triples contained in the graph, not of the graph as an individual. I'll be more careful with my words in the future. 
> 
>> that notion is on par with that the default graph has no designator.
> 
> I have opinions on this that go a little against the terms "quoted" in "quoted triple", but I need to focus on fewer things at a time. 
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Fabio
> 
> --
> 
>> there are graphs which are within the extent of a target dataset and there are graphs which are not.
>> everything else - to reflect your metaphor, is a hall of broken mirrors.
>> 
>> best regards, from berlin,

Received on Friday, 24 September 2021 09:08:00 UTC