Re: Referential transparency and opacity

>
> 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).
>

You're right about that, it only occurred to me a moment ago that Miel was
probably talking about "occurrenceOf" as used in the CG report and not what
I was thinking about.

Miel, I'm not certain, but I think I agree with Pierre-Antoine that it's
sort of orthogonal to that vocabulary and therefore orthogonal to the
potential syntax you're suggesting for it.

My question, to anybody, was if it might be possible to support both use
cases, referential transparency and referential opacity, by using
syntax—rather than choosing and supporting just one of those use cases.

Regards
Anthony



On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:25 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>