Re: Graph Literals and Monads - was: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

Henry, overthinking might be a thing.
You have visited cemeteries in Paris
Grave, body in, body out.
A grave body out is still a grave.
South of the river. .

No, I quit. Can't understand categories yes

But Henry, lot of black and white stupid stuff works

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, 00:24 Henry Story, <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
> > Subject: Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics -
> existential variables?]
> > Date: 27 July 2020 at 20:56:26 CEST
> > To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "Shaw, Ryan" <
> ryanshaw@unc.edu>
> > Cc: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> > Resent-From: semantic-web@w3.org
> >
> > Le 27/07/2020 à 18:52, Maxime Lefrançois a écrit :
> >> If we imagine datatypes that encode RDF graphs,
> >
> > Ivan Herman drafted a document a while ago that does exactly that:
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/2009/07/NamedGraph.html#definition-of-graph-literals
>
> Great find. Thanks, I was not aware of that.
>
> > I even think that, in some cases, it could be of some usefulness, but
> the kinds of use cases are so niche, and the idea of encoding RDF graphs
> inside literals in other RDF graphs is so disturbing to the homo semanticus
> that there are chances it will never get traction.
>
> I think that RDF graph literals are the best way to explain how a
> simplified
> ”named graphs” were there all along in RDF, and in fact cannot be avoided.
> (as I understand named graphs can share blank nodes (oops here they are
> agin!),
> and that would not have been possible with graph literals).
>
> It actually gives just the right level of opaqueness to those objects. A
> graph
> literal can be talked about without accepting the content. To accept the
> content
> one has to declare the literal to be true.
>
> That is a well known way Donald Davidson used Tarski’s Convention-T to
> explain
> meaning for a disquotational view of truth.
>
>    ”Snow is white” is T iff Snow is white.
>
> But one need not remove the quote if one does not believe the content to
> be true.
>
> So this allows one to say that (I did not put the full urls that would
> be needed to avoid tedium)
>
> :joe said ”:tim foaf:known :jane”^^iana:Turtle
>
> And with the says_that relation one gets the basic modal logic
> developed by Abadi, and which he argues is Monadic
>
> "Access Control in a Core Calculus of Dependency"
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571066107000746
>
> (These are the Monads initially loved so much by Functional
> Programmers, and now spreading to every programming language.
> Monads allow FP to capture a notion of context).
>
>
>
> > --AZ
> >
>
> Henry Story
>
> https://co-operating.systems
> WhatsApp, Signal, Tel: +33 6 38 32 69 84‬
> Twitter: @bblfish
>
>
>