Re: Referential transparency and opacity

One more thing:

> Am 10.02.2022 um 15:43 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/02/2022 14:38, thomas lörtsch wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 10.02.2022 um 12:43 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
>>> :

</snip>

>> - << … >> embedded triple would be syntactic sugar for standard reification
>> 
> Do you mean by that << S P O >> would be just another way of writing [ rdf:subject S ; rdf:predicate P ; rdf:object O ] ?
> 
> Then
> 
>   << :s :p :o >> :a :b.
>   << :s :p :o >> :c :d.
> 
> would be interpreted differently from
> 
>   << :s :p :o >> :a :b ; :c :d.
> 
> which was never the case in any published version of RDF*.


How am I to interpret section "6.1 Mapping RDF-star abstract syntax to RDF" of the CG report [0] where the unstar-mapping maps an embedded triple to a freshy minted blank node with certain properties?

And section "6.4.6 Other alternatives to referential opacity" [1] where a mapping with fully referentially transparent semantics is defined that looks very, very much like standard reification and differs from the proposed semantics only in that it omits referential opacity?

I’d say the blank nodes b that both mappings freshly mint represent occurrences. So is the mapping wrong or is the semantics broken?

Thomas



[0] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#mapping
[1] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#other-alternatives-to-referential-opacity