Hi,

I'm somewhat confused by referential opacity in RDF-star and I'm wondering if the example used is correct; but equally perhaps I don't fully understand D-entailment.

In particular it strikes me that the example might be backwards, i.e. under D-entailment of pure RDF (not RDF-star) would one really say?

dbr:Linköping dbo:populationTotal "104232"^^xsd::nonNegativeInteger entails dbr:Linköping dbo:populationTotal "000104232"^^xsd::nonNegativeInteger?

Is it not more intuitive to say the reverse, thatdbr:Linköping dbo:populationTotal "000104232"^^xsd::nonNegativeInteger entails dbr:Linköping dbo:populationTotal "104232"^^xsd::nonNegativeInteger. i.e. the lexical space of0000104232 is canonicalised to the representation 104232?

I struggle with the wording, because it appears to imply to me that an infinite set of lexical representations e.g. 0104232, 00104232, 000104232, 0000104232 ... are entailed; rather than condensing an infinite set of representations into a canonical one.

If so would the examples not be better stated the other way around? I understand that because of canonicalisation (d-entailment) they're equivalent; but would it not be clearer to change these examples to something like this:

#### under D-entailment

<< dbr:Linköping dbo:populationTotal "000104232"^^xsd::nonNegativeInteger >>
    :source <https://dbpedia.org/data/Linköping>.

#### does NOT entail

<< dbr:Linköping dbo:populationTotal "104232"^^xsd::nonNegativeInteger >>
    :source <https://dbpedia.org/data/Linköping>.

# (notice the leading zeros in the literal)

Or perhaps to also explain this in terms of how the triples lexical space forms its identity under annotation?

Or am I missing something?