Re: Referential transparency and opacity

Miel,

Are you and Anthony really talking about the same thing here?

Your comment seems to be about the occurrence vs. type distinction, not 
about referential transparency.

On 10/02/2022 10:06, Miel Vander Sande 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),

Except for that, indeed, and that's not a minor issue. There is 
one-size-fit-all notion of "occurrence", so the group would have to 
decide *which* specific notion would be baked into the syntax.

Instead, the group decided that this would be better defined as 
dedicated vocabularies *outside* of the spec -- at least for the moment 
(https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-10-29.html#x083).

Note that one dimension of this problem is, precisely, the fact that it 
is orthogonal to referential transparency: you can think of transparent 
occurrences (e.g. multiple marriages) or opaque occurrences (e.g. 
multiple mentions of the triple in different triple stores or files).

> 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
>