Re: Referential transparency and opacity

Hi Miel

With regards to that specific example, I'd use a statement with time and
space positions, as I've proposed, so there wouldn't be a need for an
"occurrenceOf" relation I think. So, without modifying the meaning:

:RichardB :marriedTo :LizT [1966, _)

If it was a different n-ary relationship that didn't mention time, I'd use
a "complex statement", as I've also proposed, so there still wouldn't be a
need for an "occurrenceOf" relation I think:

:LizT :starredIn :JaneEyre
    {
        :role :HelenBurns,
        :pay-USD 10000,
    }

Maybe I'm missing something you're saying though, is there some other need
for the relation that I'm not thinking about properly? If so, feel free to
write a different example and I'll try to understand.

Regards
Anthony

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:36 PM Miel Vander Sande <
miel.vandersande@meemoo.be> wrote:

> 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
>>
>