This is an example of using reified triples for expressing and annotating historical descriptions.
The starting point was the Wikidata description of Anne Bonny, edited into a simplified example form. Some references were followed to get a slightly more detailed account.
The result serves as an illustration of how many sources combine to form the basis of a truth-value judgement. Each source may in itself be partial and possibly inaccurate, and the resulting graph expresses the judgements, by choosing which triples to assert, and which to merely reference.
The basic Person description is mainly based on Schema.org and Wikidata terms.
References are modelled as reifiers of statements derived from various source materials (usually written accounts). They can be given for any statements, including those about circumstances and other references.
A couple of Circumstances are also described, representing qualifications of simple facts as marginal accounts for context. In this example, they capture some temporal qualities underlying the simple relationships. That keeps the model closer to a flat set of facts, avoiding a more granular event-or-situation-oriented model up front. Circumstances can be based on other circumstances.
This makes use of the "many-to-many" nature of reifiers, where multiple triples can be reified at once, and several reifiers can be related to the same triple. References can be coarse-grained, even encompassing all of the statements derived from a source, or fine-grained, one reference per statement, or any combination thereof. Furthermore, a reference may be split up into several, to describe particular aspects pertaining only to a section or topic, or to reflect updates of source material. (Such "refactoring" of reifiers should not require changes in querying or otherwise consuming this data.)
PREFIX : <http://example.org/ns#>
BASE <http://example.org/>
##
# These are the primary facts asserted by the publisher of this graph.
<Anne_Bonny> a :Person ;
:name "Anne Bonny" ;
:givenName "Anne"@en ;
:familyName "Bonny"@en {| a :Circumstance ; :basedOn <#001> |} ;
:parent <William_Cormac> ~ <#003> ~ <#005> ,
<Mary_Brennan> ~ <#003> ~ <#005> ;
:birthPlace <Kinsale,Cork_County,Ireland> ~ <#006> ~ <#008> ~ <#005> ;
:birthDate "1697"^^:EDTF ~ <#007> ;
:spouse <James_Bonny> ~ <#005> ~ <#001> ;
:deathDate "?1733-12-29"^^:EDTF ~ <#009> ;
:placeOfBurial <Spanish_Town,Jamaica> ~ <#009> .
##
# These are various documented sources of claims; asserted or just cited.
# Again, according to the publisher of this graph.
<#001> a :Circumstance ;
:startDate "1716"^^:EDTF ~ <#005> .
<#002> a :Reference ;
:source <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q231549> ;
:date "2024-08-14T13:27:33Z"^^:DateTime .
<#003> a :Reference ;
:source <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bonny> ;
:date "2024-08-14T10:05:22Z"^^:DateTime .
<#004> a :Reference ;
:source <https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бонни,_Энн> ~ <#002> ;
:date "2024-08-14T13:18:38Z"^^:DateTime .
<#005> a :Reference ;
:source <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3446400036.html> ~ <#002> ;
:date "2024-08-14T12:48:07Z"^^:DateTime .
<#006> a :Reference ;
:source <http://www.historyorb.com/people/anne-bonny> ~ <#002> ;
:date "2024-08-14T10:07:03Z"^^:DateTime .
<#007> a :Reference ;
:source <OxfordEncyclopediaOfWomenInWorldHistory> ~ <#002> ;
:date "2024-08-14T13:22:24Z"^^:DateTime .
<#008> a :Reference ;
:source <HistoricalDictionaryOfBritishWomen> ~ <#002> ;
:date "2024-08-14T11:35:28Z"^^:DateTime .
<#009> a :Reference ;
:source <SaintCatherinesParishBurialRecord> ~ <#002> ;
:date "2024-08-14T13:13:31Z"^^:DateTime .
<#010> a :Reference ;
:status :Disproved ~ <#003> ~ <#011> ;
:source <ThePirateTrialOfAnneBonnyAndMaryRead> ~ <#003> ;
:date "2024-08-14T12:59:06Z"^^:DateTime .
<#011> a :Reference ;
:source <https://www.postandcourier.com/article_e7fc1e2c-101d-11e8-90b7-9fdf20ba62f8.html> ~ <#003>;
:date "2024-07-10"^^:Date ~ <#003> .
##
# These are spurious claims made in the referenced sources.
# They are not considered true by the publisher of this graph.
<< <Anne_Bonny> :familyName "Brennan" ~ <#005> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :familyName "Cormac" ~ <#005> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :birthDate "?1700"^^:EDTF ~ <#006> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :birthDate "?1700"^^:EDTF ~ <#008> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :birthDate "1700-03-08"^^:EDTF ~ <#005> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :deathDate "1782"^^:EDTF ~ <#006> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :deathDate "1782"^^:EDTF ~ <#010> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :deathDate "1782"^^:EDTF ~ <#004> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :deathDate "1782-04-25"^^:EDTF ~ <#005> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :deathPlace <Cork,Cork_County,Ireland> ~ <#010> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :placeOfBurial <York_County,Virginia,USA> ~ <#004> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :placeOfBurial <South_Carolina,USA> ~ <#005> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :spouse <Joseph_Burleigh> ~ <#005> >> .
<< <Anne_Bonny> :spouse <Joseph_Burleigh> ~ <#66bcb8f8> >> .
<< <#66bcb8f8> a :Circumstance ~ <#005> >> .
<< <#66bcb8f8> :startPlace <Charles_Town,West_Virginia,USA> ~ <#005> >> .
Unless you know what the syntax means, there is no obvious difference of interpretation (there are lots of surface differences; including indentation, choice of prefixes, etc.). Your claim is about what is apparent to you, but things are perceived differently based on previous knowledge/experience.
Given:
and:
would you claim these have obvious differences in meaning that should be reflected in the data model?
I did not mean "it" as the triple in its role of being asserted, but as a triple, the reference to which I'd use a triple term if this shorthand didn't exist. That is a convenence addition to syntax for asserting the triple; similar to how I can avoid typing the subject and predicate twice in the example I just gave above. Again, I am not talking about reifying "the assertion" of that triple.
Do you mean "the triple, known to be true" or "the assertion of the triple", or something else?