Re: Referential transparency and opacity

Thomas has basically understood the rationale behind the syntax exactly.

In GitHub Pierre-Antoine commented
<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/200#issuecomment-1035011800>:

> [about the inference rule with ow:inverseOf]
> Another example showing that you do not always want to do that:
>
>     <#location1> :connectedTo <#location2> {| :distanceInKm 12; :elevationGainInM 15  |}.
>
>     :connectedTo a owl:SymmetricProperty.
>     # equivalent to :connectedTo owl:inverseOf :connectedTo .
>
> While the rule above makes sense for :distanceInKm, it clearly does not
> for :elevationGainInM...
>

Is there another example where it shouldn't hold? Just because I think "
:elevationGainInM" is probably better modeled as ":elevationDifferenceInM".
Also, is there an example where the annotation is metadata and not
additional data? I think the lack of separation there is still a problem in
all of this.

Regards
Anthony

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 2:33 AM thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:

> 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
>