Please refer back to earlier in this thread where you both talk about using EmployeeRole which works nicely for @jdevalk only the double worksFor is weird. I referenced the section from RDF-star draft where they describe the difference between an RDF-star triple and occurrence.
2
In case of <jdevalk> <worksFor> <yoast> but you want to describe he held different roles at different times, you cannot just say << <jdevalk> <worksFor> <yoast> >> :started "2002-01-01" as all those qualifying statements would be about *the same* triple, so it'd be nonsense.
1
Instead, according the RDF-star draft, you need to introduce a blank node that identifies *an occurence of* the triple for each role you want to describe.
1
1
to complement: 1) You need to introduce a *node* -- it does not have to be blank. 2) The example in the RDF-star spec presents a patter, that can be generalized: different relations between a quoted triple and its occurrences/realizations/roles...
1
2
Hard to make an elaborate response in a tweet... I tried to sum it up in this gitst: gist.github.com/pchampin/06f…
1
5
@pchampin that illustrates my concern well. A statement has a performance role in a film? 😜 To me, an N-ary relation makes more sense in such cases w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelation…
2
1
@wohnjalker is it really better to say that a movie has actor a PerformanceRole? 😈 But fully agreed, naming matters, and my name choice in this example was poor. Renamed it to "withPerformanceRole".
Jun 25, 2022 · 8:21 AM UTC
1