Re: Pragmatics of Blank Nodes Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

*"I don't think so. I think it is much simpler than that. If I have
understood it correctly, it is a consequence of "lean"ing the graph."*


Not sure if I understand, David, doesn't that imply you're simply doing a
structural equivalence check, defining a composite key consisting of all
properties when it's possible not all properties are required?

Anthony

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:11 PM David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

>  >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:42 PM Patrick J Hayes wrote:
>  >> How can you ever know that the particular arguments given to
>  >> the n-ary relation are enough to constitute a key?
>
> I'm not sure that "key" is quite the right term here, though
> perhaps it amounts to a key of sorts, because the connected
> properties uniquely "identify" a lean version of that blank
> node.  I think.  I'm still trying to get my head around this!
>
>  >> And if you do know it, how can you state it so as to validate
>  >> the inference? I don't think (?) it can be stated in, for
>  >> example, OWL. You would need at least FOL with identity,
>  >> way beyond RDF expressivity.
>  >>
>  > On 12/4/18 8:51 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>  > It think it's the same as the discussion around Addresses,
>  > it just depends from type to type what constitutes a key.
>
> I don't think so.  I think it is much simpler than that.  If I
> have understood it correctly, it is a consequence of
> "lean"ing the graph.
>
> David Booth
>
>