Open ncarboni opened 4 years ago
Agreed that example 2-3 represent the diverse instantiation of the same meta pattern. The instantiation are important and are the one showed to the users (e.g. preferred and alternate appellation), and should be documented at a field level with separate it.
Examples 4, 5, 6 are different
When patterns are different?
E1 --> P1 --> E41
E1 --> P1 --> E41 --> P2 --> E55(x)
E1 --> P1 --> E41 --> P2 --> E55(y)
E1 --> P1 --> E41 --> rdf:value --> rdf:Literal
E1 --> P1 --> E41 --> rdfs:label --> rdf:Literal
E1 --> P1 --> E41 --> Px_has_symbolic_content --> rdf:Literal
In my perspective, these are all different patterns. Specifically,
Example 2 and 3 do have similar structure, but the E55 change the meaning of the node (E41) they are attached to, therefore making them semantically different.
Examples 4, 5, 6 do have express the same semantic content but it is expressed differently, so they are syntactically diverse.