Re: defining the semantics of lists

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 5:02 PM, thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
> 
...
> The situation with lists is a classic SNAFU. But lists are the easiest part. Identifcation is broken and no one even cares anymore. "Just use AI to disambiguate" I hear. Reification is a mess (and RDF* in its current state might make it better, or worse) and Named Graphs have no semantics, so there is no sound meta modelling in RDF.

Whoa. Named graphs have a really crisp, IMO actually rather beautiful, semantics which makes the ideas of committment and publication semantically exact, using the fundamental idea of a performative. Read the paper that introduced the terminology for details:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3199260

especially section 8.

Unfortunately, this semantics (and indeed the very idea of named graphs) was never warranted by the W3C, so remains only a suggestion. It is still a damn good suggestion, however. 

Pat