Re: RDF* and conjectures

Dear James, 

> On 24 Sep 2021, at 11:06, James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I'll look for Dragnet on Netflix, I promise. 

> at least our existences overlapped.

Well, he did not really *exist*, as such, differently from Tacitus, but yeah, in a way...

>>>> 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"?

What really satisfies me is that, since I need a way to represent 3.4 anyway, saying that plain named graphs use 3.8 whether we are aware of it or not is a good case for the need for Conjectures, so yes, I am happy. 

Ciao

Fabio

--
> 

>

Received on Friday, 24 September 2021 09:31:03 UTC