- From: thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:17:53 +0100
- To: Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it>
- Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>, "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
> Am 21.01.2022 um 18:01 schrieb Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it>: […] >> Third, RDF-star has its own gotchas. The most discussed recently being the "multiple occurrences" problem (Liz and Richard marriages, Cleveland's presidencies), so you would still need to add the "additional node", even when using RDF-star... > > Yes. I agree. > > But this problem is not shared by named graphs, and this is why we need a rdf-star-like structure to handle complex and compound statements, an rdf-star-named-graph or something. Not sure about that. RDF-star handles types, not occurrences. An RDF-star-graph would most probably still be defined as representing the type of graph, not a specific occurrence, so you would have the same multiset issues as with RDF-star triples (and the same issues with referential opacity, of course). Thomas
Received on Friday, 21 January 2022 17:18:09 UTC