Re: Referential transparency and opacity

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for finally bringing this mailing list back to the original
unanswered questions of thomas and me from
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Dec/0093.html
(this is why we can't have nice things btw).

How does a syntax for referentially transparent relate to a shorthand
syntax for occurence/stated/said/...?

For example (w made up syntax)

<|:RichardB :marriedTo :LizT|> :start 1966

would be something along the lines of

[] :occurrenceOf <<:RichardB :marriedTo :LizT>>; :start 1966

I have no clue about possible repercussions (except for having to
standardize :occurenceOf), so I wonder what the group thinks of this.

Best,

Miel











Op do 10 feb. 2022 om 09:51 schreef Anthony Moretti <
anthony.moretti@gmail.com>:

> I'm aware there are still semantics issues, but if they're potentially
> resolvable would it be possible to support both referentially transparent
> and referentially opaque statements by using a different syntax for each?
> So, I guess, something like:
>
>     Referentially transparent statement:
>     << S R O >>
>
>     Referentially opaque statement:
>     <<" S R O ">>
>
> With one usage rule:
>
>     Transparent statements can only be nested in transparent statements.
>
> The rule means that once the <<" ">> delimiters are used everything
> inside, no matter how deeply nested, is also referentially opaque, which
> keeps things composable.
>
> Just asking because I saw Thomas' email
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021May/0023.html> about
> the topic.
>
> Regards
> Anthony
>