Re: defining the semantics of lists

> On May 18, 2020, at 5:55 PM, thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
> 
>>> ...
>>>> Yes, that ability – to say explicitly, in the data, that a certain set of data is complete wrt some kinds of information – would enable closed worlds to be reasoned about in an open-world reasoning framework. It is not easy to see how to do this, however. I have thought about this on and off for about a decade or more, and have not come up with a workable general way to do it. 
>>> 
>>> Would very fine grained Named Graphs (*) help? Rather Named Triples that can be grouped to Graphs in arbitrary ways (virtual/nested/overlapping/fluid Named Graphs if you want). May no scale super well but let’s not do early optimization. 
>> 
>> I do not follow what you mean here by ‘fine grained'. Named graphs would certainly help, indeed are arguably essential. 
> 
> I mean defining triple per triple to what graph it belongs. That way you can have arbitrarily nested and overlapping graphs - which you’ll need when you put all sorts of information (like closedness, provenance, context etc etc) in the graph layer


? But any triple can be in any number of graphs. If a million people are using DBpedia, then there are probably some RDF triples that in thousands of graph documents at any given moment. 

Pat