- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:44:41 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 04/04/2024 16:30, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2024, at 03:41 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>>
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :date 1962 .
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :___location :rome .
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :___location :rome .
>>>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :date 1962 .
>>>
>>> It helps with the issue of naming, but it doesn’t address the asymmetry. Now Enrico has married-in and married-on properties, and the reification has date and ___location properties. Why is this a good model of properties that all come from the same relation where they are all properties of birth certificates?
>>
>> They are not: has married-in and married-on have ___domain person, while date and ___location have ___domain birth certificate. They NEED to be distinct properties, and depending on what are you talking about (people or birth certificates) you use the former of the latter.
>
>
> Too many things were left unsaid in the initial post (e.g.,
> ___domain and range of each property), left for the reader to
> infer from what *is* said.
>
> When such inference is stated, or such absence is flagged,
> the response *must* restate what was correctly stated in
> the first place, *and* clearly state the corrections and/or
> additions; else, we are stuck with fuzzy and incomplete
> inferences, which often differ from the original poster's
> original and/or revised intent.
>
> Complicated and confusing discussions like this require that
> all relevant details be stated clearly in each message, and
> for each example.
Agreed.
One way would be to write a use case for this - or highlight an existing
one.
Andy
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 April 2024 13:44:47 UTC