Re: Stupid curiosity

Hi Fabio,

On 18/01/2022 10:47, Fabio Vitali wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a very stupid question you will be able to answer in just a few words, surely. Please forgive me for the naivety of it.
>
> Section 6.1 of the SC spec says "Given an RDF-star graph G, the following steps define the unstar mapping, which transform G into an RDF graph that we call unstar(G)." and in which a quoted triple is mapped onto a freshly minted blank node that blah blah blah.
>
> Therefore is it correct or incorrect to state that:
>
> "a quoted triple IS a blank node that blah blah blah"?

that would be incorrect.

>
> That is to say: is the quoted triple an atomic concept that is understood as a blank node only if you insist to map it into the standard RDF 1.1 semantics,
yes (although "atomic" is not the best way to qualify it... but that's 
another discussion)
> or is it a short-hand notation for a blank node that is the subject of some unstar: predicates?

no

for any RDF-star graph G, unstar(G) is a *different* graph. In the 
general case, those two graphs are not equivalent according to 
RDF-star's semantics. The unstar mapping is merely a tool for defining 
RDF-star's semantics in terms of RDF 1.1 semantics. It is not a 
"semantically preserving" transformation.

   best

>
> Thank you for any clarification in this regard.
>
> Fabio
>
> --
>
> Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly,
> Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?'
> Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
> phone:  +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand.
> e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle"
> http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/

>
>
>
>
>