Semantic Value Staging Ontology
type: Ontology
description: Minimal vocabulary for staging a professional claim's Syntax/Meaning/Proof revisions across time. Deliberately small: it supplements oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials rather than replacing any of them — every fact those vocabularies can already express is expressed with them, not re-declared here.
version info: 1.0.0
date created: 2026-08-12

Professional Claim
type: Class
subclass of: Claim
comment: A syntactically well-formed assertion about a person's work, applied as an additional type alongside a native oplli: resource (oplli:Position, oplli:Person). On its own — as plain oplli:positionSummary/oplli:headline text — it carries no bound meaning and no external proof. Corresponds to Turner's 'syntax' layer. Specializes schema:Claim (verified real schema.org type, 'a specific, factually-oriented claim that could be the itemReviewed in a ClaimReview') to the professional-work domain.

Semantic Value Level
type: Class
subclass of: Concept
comment: Which layer(s) of Turner's formula (Syntax, Meaning, Proof) a given RDF rendition of a claim satisfies. Specializes skos:Concept, consistent with :Syntax/:Meaning/:Proof already carrying skos:prefLabel and skos:inScheme below.

Syntax only
type: Semantic Value Level
in scheme: Turner Semantic Value Levels

Syntax + Meaning
type: Semantic Value Level
in scheme: Turner Semantic Value Levels

Syntax + Meaning + Proof
type: Semantic Value Level
in scheme: Turner Semantic Value Levels

has semantic value level
type: ObjectProperty
type: FunctionalProperty
comment: Assigns the single Syntax/Meaning/Proof stage a claim resource currently occupies. Checked for a broader schema.org/DBpedia/Wikidata superproperty; none found — schema:additionalType is untyped/generic and not a defensible match for a three-value enumeration, so no rdfs:subPropertyOf is asserted. owl:FunctionalProperty: a claim resource has exactly one stage at a time, never two.
domain: Professional Claim
range: Semantic Value Level

revision of
type: ObjectProperty
type: AsymmetricProperty
type: IrreflexiveProperty
type: FunctionalProperty
sub property of: wasRevisionOf
domain: Professional Claim
range: Professional Claim
comment: Chains successive renditions of the same underlying claim as it accrues ontology typing (meaning) and then external evidence (proof). owl:AsymmetricProperty + owl:IrreflexiveProperty: a claim cannot be a revision of itself, and if A revisionOf B then B is never revisionOf A. owl:FunctionalProperty: each stage in this file has exactly one immediate predecessor.

Claimant
type: Person
recommendations received: boardRecommendation
num recommenders: 1

Syntax stage — bare claim
type: Professional Claim
type: Position
position: 1
is part of: Example A — Led Enterprise Transformation
has semantic value level: Syntax only
position summary: Led enterprise transformation.
comment: Grammatically well-formed and parseable, but oplli:Position has no oplli:jobTitle and no oplli:company asserted: 'enterprise' and 'transformation' are unbound. A reasoner can validate the string; it cannot validate the claim.

Meaning stage — bound to Position/Company/JobTitle
type: Professional Claim
type: Position
position: 2
is part of: Example A — Led Enterprise Transformation
has semantic value level: Syntax + Meaning
revision of: Syntax stage — bare claim
position summary: Led enterprise sales transformation across a 6,000+ seller organization.
job title: salesTransformationTitle
company: sellerOrg
comment: oplli:jobTitle and oplli:company are now bound to named resources — the claim's variables are populated using the ontology's own native Position/Company/JobTitle classes. Nothing outside the claim yet confirms it happened or worked.

salesTransformationTitle
type: JobTitle
title: Head of Enterprise Sales Transformation

sellerOrg
type: Company
company name: Enterprise Sales Organization
company size: 6,000+ sellers

Proof stage — schema:result metrics via PROV-O
type: Professional Claim
type: Position
type: Activity
position: 3
is part of: Example A — Led Enterprise Transformation
has semantic value level: Syntax + Meaning + Proof
revision of: Meaning stage — bound to Position/Company/JobTitle
position summary: Led enterprise sales transformation across a 6,000+ seller organization, improving Salesforce adoption, pipeline governance and executive decision-making.
job title: salesTransformationTitle
company: sellerOrg
result: Salesforce adoption rate
result: Pipeline governance maturity
comment: oplli: — a real, dereferenceable LinkedIn/Xing profile ontology — has no property anywhere for a Position's measurable outcome; it predates 'proof metrics' as a stated concern. schema:result plus PROV-O fill exactly that gap: the same resource is additionally typed prov:Activity so its outcomes can be independently addressed, typed schema:QuantitativeValue entities rather than more adjectives inside positionSummary.

Salesforce adoption rate
type: QuantitativeValue
type: Entity
was generated by: Proof stage — schema:result metrics via PROV-O

Pipeline governance maturity
type: QuantitativeValue
type: Entity
was generated by: Proof stage — schema:result metrics via PROV-O

Trust Loop — self-issued, ungrounded
type: Professional Claim
type: VerifiableCredential
position: 1
is part of: Example B — The Trust Loop
has semantic value level: Syntax only
headline: I'm strategic because I say I'm strategic.
credential subject: Claimant
issuer: Claimant
comment: vc:issuer is identical to vc:credentialSubject — the standard-vocabulary definition of self-attestation. No sec:proof is asserted, and post:person has zero incoming oplli:recommendationsReceived — no oplli:Recommendation resource exists anywhere in the graph. That absence, checkable by a simple query, IS Turner's Trust Loop.

Trust Loop broken — externally witnessed
type: Professional Claim
type: VerifiableCredential
position: 2
is part of: Example B — The Trust Loop
has semantic value level: Syntax + Meaning + Proof
headline: Led the board-approved 3-year growth strategy that took ARR from $40M to $95M.
credential subject: Claimant
issuer: Board of Directors
proof: Board resolution approving 3-year growth strategy
about: ARR growth, 3-year strategy
comment: Contrast case: vc:issuer now resolves to a distinct schema:Organization and sec:proof references independent evidence — the formal/cryptographic shape of an external witness. In parallel, post:person carries an actual oplli:recommendationsReceived link to an oplli:Recommendation, which is the ontology's own native answer to the same problem: 'a Recommendation adds third-party corroboration,' in Turner's words, not a custom property invented for this file.

boardRecommendation
type: Recommendation
recommendation type: colleague
recommender: Chair, Board of Directors

Board of Directors
type: Organization

Board resolution approving 3-year growth strategy
type: Entity

ARR growth, 3-year strategy
type: MonetaryAmount
type: Entity
min value: 40000000
max value: 95000000
currency: USD

Syntax stage — bare, ambiguous number
type: Professional Claim
type: Position
position: 1
is part of: Example C — Quantified Personal Blanding
has semantic value level: Syntax only
position summary: Generated $17M.
about: ambiguousAmount
comment: A number is present, but post:ambiguousAmount is untyped beyond a bare value: no schema:MonetaryAmount subtype, no schema:currency asserted as a distinguishing fact, no prov:wasGeneratedBy link — and oplli: has no property for this at all. Revenue, savings, pipeline, valuation, bookings and budget remain equally consistent with this graph. Proof-shaped syntax without proof.

ambiguousAmount
type: QuantitativeValue
value: 17000000

Proof stage — typed MonetaryAmount with provenance
type: Professional Claim
type: Position
position: 2
is part of: Example C — Quantified Personal Blanding
has semantic value level: Syntax + Meaning + Proof
revision of: Syntax stage — bare, ambiguous number
position summary: Generated $17M in incremental revenue by rebuilding the enterprise partner strategy across North America, reversing two years of channel decline.
about: Incremental revenue from partner strategy rebuild
comment: rdf:type schema:MonetaryAmount (not a bare schema:QuantitativeValue) plus schema:currency plus prov:wasGeneratedBy an explicitly typed, geographically scoped schema:Action/prov:Activity resolves what kind of $17M this is and what produced it — using schema.org/PROV-O precisely where oplli: is silent.

Incremental revenue from partner strategy rebuild
type: MonetaryAmount
type: Entity
value: 17000000
currency: USD
was generated by: Enterprise Partner Strategy Rebuild

Enterprise Partner Strategy Rebuild
type: Action
type: Activity
location: North America
result: Incremental revenue from partner strategy rebuild

Proof stage — scale, comparison and timeframe
type: Professional Claim
type: Position
position: 1
is part of: Example D — Proof Metrics as Scale, Comparison and Timeframe
has semantic value level: Syntax + Meaning + Proof
position summary: Raised customer retention from 72% to 91% in 18 months across a 4.2M-member portfolio.
about: Customer retention rate, before/after
about: Retention program membership base
comment: A bare 'Improved customer retention' claim would render here as a single unscoped schema:QuantitativeValue with no minValue/maxValue/duration — the reader (human or machine) would have to supply starting point, ending point, timeframe and scale itself. Typing the change as minValue/maxValue/duration on one resource, plus a separately typed schema:Audience for portfolio size, makes all four dimensions queryable facts instead of prose to infer. oplli: has no equivalent property for a Position's performance delta, so schema.org carries this stage entirely.

Customer retention rate, before/after
type: QuantitativeValue
type: Entity
min value: 72
max value: 91
unit text: percent
duration: P18M

Retention program membership base
type: Audience
audience size: 4200000

Turner Semantic Value Levels
type: ConceptScheme
has top concept: Syntax only
has top concept: Syntax + Meaning
has top concept: Syntax + Meaning + Proof

Semantic Value on LinkedIn: Why Proof Changes What a Claim Means
type: CreativeWork
author: Kevin D. Turner
date published: 2026-08-11
comment: The source article. Prose-only: it states 'Syntax + Meaning + Proof = Semantic Value' and walks worked before/after claim pairs, but never renders a claim as structured data. This TTL/HTML pair is the worked RDF demonstration the article itself does not provide.

Kevin D. Turner
type: Person
comment: Author of the source LinkedIn article. IRI is the author's own LinkedIn profile URL, read directly from the article page's byline link (linkedin.com/in/president), per the LinkedIn-profile-first Person IRI denotation priority.

Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
type: Article
abstract: Kevin D. Turner's LinkedIn article makes one point: a claim on a profile only becomes trustworthy once it has context and evidence behind it — not just confident wording. This page proves that point by rebuilding four of his own example claims as structured data, one stage at a time: the bare claim, the claim with context added, and the claim backed by evidence. The structured data reuses existing, real standards rather than inventing new ones. OpenLink's own oplli: vocabulary already matches LinkedIn's own profile fields, so it does most of the work. schema.org and PROV-O step in only where that vocabulary has a genuine gap: describing a measurable result. And the W3C's Verifiable Credentials standard distinguishes a claim someone else vouches for from a claim that only vouches for itself. Two small labels — post:ProfessionalClaim and post:SemanticValueLevel — were added on top, because nothing else marks which of the three stages a given claim has reached.
about: Semantic Value on LinkedIn: Why Proof Changes What a Claim Means
citation: Semantic Value on LinkedIn: Why Proof Changes What a Claim Means
creator: this
date created: 2026-08-12
has part: FAQ: Semantic Value, Proof, and RDF
has part: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value
has part: How to Render a Professional Claim's Syntax/Meaning/Proof Stages in RDF
has part: Example A — Led Enterprise Transformation
has part: Example B — The Trust Loop
has part: Example C — Quantified Personal Blanding
has part: Example D — Proof Metrics as Scale, Comparison and Timeframe

How to Render a Professional Claim's Syntax/Meaning/Proof Stages in RDF
type: HowTo
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
step: Survey existing vocabularies before minting anything
step: Prefer a real, field-matching ontology over a generic one
step: Render the bare claim as the Syntax stage
step: Bind claim variables using the ontology's own classes for the Meaning stage
step: Identify a genuine gap before reaching for a second vocabulary
step: Fill confirmed gaps with schema.org and PROV-O for the Proof stage
step: Model self-attestation vs. external witness with W3C Verifiable Credentials

Survey existing vocabularies before minting anything
type: HowToStep
position: 1
text: Check for a dedicated vocabulary first (here: DOAC and ResumeRDF for CVs/resumes). Reject any candidate whose namespace cannot be confirmed as stable and dereferenceable at authoring time — do not fabricate or guess an IRI to make a candidate usable.

Prefer a real, field-matching ontology over a generic one
type: HowToStep
position: 2
text: When a supplied or locally available ontology matches the source's own field structure (here: OpenLink's oplli: LinkedIn ontology, whose positionSummary/headline/Position/Recommendation map directly onto Turner's [Experience]/[Headline]/[About] examples), use it as the primary vocabulary rather than a generic alternative.

Render the bare claim as the Syntax stage
type: HowToStep
position: 3
text: Attach the claim's literal text to the chosen native property (oplli:positionSummary or oplli:headline) with no supporting typed entities. This stage should look exactly as unbound as the plain-English sentence is.

Bind claim variables using the ontology's own classes for the Meaning stage
type: HowToStep
position: 4
text: Add typed resources using the chosen ontology's native classes (oplli:JobTitle, oplli:Company) so the claim's previously-unbound variables (who, where, how large) resolve to addressable entities.

Identify a genuine gap before reaching for a second vocabulary
type: HowToStep
position: 5
text: Confirm, rather than assume, that the primary ontology has no property for the needed fact. oplli: (dateCreated 2013) has no property anywhere for a Position's measurable outcome — a genuine, checkable gap, not a convenience shortcut.

Fill confirmed gaps with schema.org and PROV-O for the Proof stage
type: HowToStep
position: 6
text: Use schema:result, schema:QuantitativeValue, schema:MonetaryAmount and prov:wasGeneratedBy/prov:Entity only where the primary ontology has nothing to offer, so outcomes exist as independently addressable, typed resources rather than more adjectives in the claim text.

Model self-attestation vs. external witness with W3C Verifiable Credentials
type: HowToStep
position: 7
text: For claims whose 'proof' is corroboration rather than a metric (the Trust Loop), use vc:credentialSubject and vc:issuer: identical values model self-attestation, distinct values plus sec:proof model an external witness. Chain every stage to its predecessor with post:revisionOf (subPropertyOf prov:wasRevisionOf) so the claim's history stays queryable.

FAQ: Semantic Value, Proof, and RDF
type: FAQPage
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
has part: What does "Syntax + Meaning + Proof = Semantic Value" mean?
has part: Why does this RDF/HTML pair exist if Turner's article already makes the argument?
has part: Why was OpenLink's oplli: ontology chosen instead of a generic vocabulary?
has part: Why weren't DOAC or ResumeRDF used, since they are dedicated CV/resume ontologies?
has part: What genuine gap in oplli: do schema.org and PROV-O fill?
has part: Why use W3C Verifiable Credentials instead of a custom "grounded by" property?
has part: What is the "Trust Loop" and how does the RDF show it?
has part: What does post:hasSemanticValueLevel do that rdf:type alone could not?
has part: Why is "Generated $17M." ambiguous even though it contains a number?
has part: What does oplli:Recommendation contribute that Turner's article names explicitly?
has part: How does this relate to Tarski's Convention T, which Turner cites?
has part: Why does oplli:recommender use a plain string instead of an object property to a Person?

What does "Syntax + Meaning + Proof = Semantic Value" mean?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA1

faqA1
type: Answer
text: It is Kevin D. Turner's formula for why one professional claim reads as trustworthy and another, using similar words, reads as empty. Syntax is whether the sentence is well-formed; Meaning is whether its variables (who, what, how large) are bound to something specific; Proof is whether evidence exists outside the claim itself for someone to evaluate it against.

Why does this RDF/HTML pair exist if Turner's article already makes the argument?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA2

faqA2
type: Answer
text: The article stays entirely in prose — it never shows what a claim actually looks like once ontologies bind its meaning and proof. This companion renders four of the article's own before/after examples as RDF at each of the three stages, so the mechanism Turner describes is literal and machine-checkable rather than just asserted.

Why was OpenLink's oplli: ontology chosen instead of a generic vocabulary?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA3

faqA3
type: Answer
text: oplli: is a field-for-field match: oplli:headline and oplli:summary correspond directly to Turner's [Headline]/[About] examples, and oplli:Position/oplli:positionSummary/oplli:jobTitle/oplli:company correspond to his [Experience] examples. It also has built-in oplli:Certification and oplli:Recommendation classes — a Recommendation is exactly the third-party corroboration Turner names explicitly.

Why weren't DOAC or ResumeRDF used, since they are dedicated CV/resume ontologies?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA4

faqA4
type: Answer
text: Both were checked. Both are archived/inactive Semantic Web efforts from the early 2010s, and neither has a namespace that could be confirmed as stable and dereferenceable at authoring time — so neither is cited by IRI here, per the house rule against asserting unverified URLs.

What genuine gap in oplli: do schema.org and PROV-O fill?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA5

faqA5
type: Answer
text: oplli: (last modified 2018) has no property anywhere for a Position's measurable outcome — nothing plays the role of a 'proof metric.' schema:result, schema:QuantitativeValue, schema:MonetaryAmount and prov:wasGeneratedBy/prov:Entity are used only for that confirmed gap, not as a general replacement for oplli:.

Why use W3C Verifiable Credentials instead of a custom "grounded by" property?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA6

faqA6
type: Answer
text: An earlier draft of this file used a custom post:groundedBy property pointed at itself to model self-attestation. W3C Verifiable Credentials already has the standard shape for this: vc:issuer identical to vc:credentialSubject is self-attestation; vc:issuer distinct from vc:credentialSubject, alongside sec:proof, is an external witness. Reusing that standard shape is more precise than inventing a parallel one.

What is the "Trust Loop" and how does the RDF show it?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA7

faqA7
type: Answer
text: Turner's Trust Loop is a claim whose only support is repeating itself ('I'm strategic because I say I'm strategic'). In post:trustLoopClaim, vc:issuer is literally the same resource as vc:credentialSubject, and the claimant has zero incoming oplli:recommendationsReceived links anywhere in the graph — both facts are checkable by a simple query, unlike a feeling of confidence in prose.

What does post:hasSemanticValueLevel do that rdf:type alone could not?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA8

faqA8
type: Answer
text: post:hasSemanticValueLevel is a dedicated object property pointing at a post:SemanticValueLevel individual (post:Syntax, post:Meaning, or post:Proof) so a query can filter claims by stage directly, independent of which native ontology (oplli:, VC) is also typing that same resource via rdf:type.

Why is "Generated $17M." ambiguous even though it contains a number?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA9

faqA9
type: Answer
text: In post:positionC_numbersOnly, the linked post:ambiguousAmount is typed only as a bare schema:QuantitativeValue with a numeric schema:value — no schema:MonetaryAmount subtype, no schema:currency, no prov:wasGeneratedBy. Revenue, savings, pipeline, valuation, bookings and budget are all still equally consistent with that graph. A number is not proof; a typed, provenance-linked number is.

What does oplli:Recommendation contribute that Turner's article names explicitly?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA10

faqA10
type: Answer
text: Turner writes that 'a Recommendation adds third-party corroboration.' oplli:Recommendation, reached via oplli:recommendationsReceived, is that exact mechanism already built into a real, dereferenceable LinkedIn/Xing profile ontology — not a term invented for this exercise.

How does this relate to Tarski's Convention T, which Turner cites?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA11

faqA11
type: Answer
text: Tarski's Convention T distinguishes a sentence from the condition that would make it true ('snow is white' is true iff snow is white). Turner applies this to profiles: a profile cannot make its own claim true by restating it. In RDF terms, the Meaning and Proof stages exist precisely to give a claim resources outside itself — schema:result entities, oplli:Recommendation, sec:proof — that a reasoner or a reader can check independently of the claim's own text.

Why does oplli:recommender use a plain string instead of an object property to a Person?
type: Question
accepted answer: faqA12

faqA12
type: Answer
text: That is a real, honest limitation of the 2013-vintage oplli: ontology, not a choice made for this exercise — oplli:recommender's declared rdfs:range is xsd:string. It is why the Trust-Loop contrast case also layers in vc:issuer/sec:proof: those add the machine-checkable, distinct-external-party structure that a bare string name cannot guarantee on its own.

Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value
type: DefinedTermSet
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
has defined term: Semantic Value
has defined term: Syntax (layer)
has defined term: Meaning (layer)
has defined term: Proof (layer)
has defined term: Trust Loop
has defined term: oplli: (OpenLink Ontology for Professional Network Profiles)
has defined term: oplli:Position
has defined term: oplli:Recommendation
has defined term: PROV-O
has defined term: schema.org
has defined term: W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC)
has defined term: DOAC (Description of a Career)
has defined term: ResumeRDF
has defined term: Convention T (Tarski)
has part: Semantic Value
has part: Syntax (layer)
has part: Meaning (layer)
has part: Proof (layer)
has part: Trust Loop
has part: oplli: (OpenLink Ontology for Professional Network Profiles)
has part: oplli:Position
has part: oplli:Recommendation
has part: PROV-O
has part: schema.org
has part: W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC)
has part: DOAC (Description of a Career)
has part: ResumeRDF
has part: Convention T (Tarski)

Semantic Value
type: DefinedTerm
description: Turner's term for a claim's combined trustworthiness and informational content, produced by Syntax + Meaning + Proof together, not by any one layer alone.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

Syntax (layer)
type: DefinedTerm
description: Whether a claim is grammatically well-formed and parseable. Corresponds in this file to a claim resource typed post:Syntax via post:hasSemanticValueLevel, with no supporting typed entities yet.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

Meaning (layer)
type: DefinedTerm
description: Whether a claim's variables are bound to something specific and checkable. Rendered here as ontology typing (oplli:jobTitle, oplli:company) that resolves who/what/how-large.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

Proof (layer)
type: DefinedTerm
description: Whether evidence exists outside the claim itself for someone to evaluate it against. Rendered here via schema:result/PROV-O outcomes or W3C Verifiable Credentials issuer/proof structure.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

Trust Loop
type: DefinedTerm
description: Turner's term for a claim whose only support is repeating itself ('I'm strategic because I say I'm strategic'). Modeled here as vc:issuer identical to vc:credentialSubject with no external oplli:Recommendation anywhere in the graph.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

oplli: (OpenLink Ontology for Professional Network Profiles)
type: DefinedTerm
description: A real, dereferenceable ontology at http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/linkedin# (v1.0.0) for LinkedIn/Xing-style profile data — Person, Position, Certification, Recommendation, Skill, Company and their fields. Used as the primary vocabulary in this exercise because its fields map directly onto Turner's own [Headline]/[About]/[Experience] examples.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

oplli:Position
type: DefinedTerm
description: An oplli: class representing a position a profile member holds or has held, with properties positionSummary, jobTitle, company, startDate and endDate. Used here as the resource type for the [Experience]-style claim examples.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

oplli:Recommendation
type: DefinedTerm
description: An oplli: class for a recommendation of one profile member by another, reached via oplli:recommendationsReceived. Matches Turner's own line that 'a Recommendation adds third-party corroboration.'
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

PROV-O
type: DefinedTerm
description: The W3C Provenance Ontology (http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#), supplying prov:Activity, prov:Entity, prov:wasGeneratedBy and prov:wasRevisionOf. Used here to fill oplli:'s confirmed gap around measurable outcomes.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

schema.org
type: DefinedTerm
description: The widely-deployed general-purpose vocabulary, used here for schema:QuantitativeValue, schema:MonetaryAmount, schema:result and schema:Audience, again only where oplli: has no equivalent property.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC)
type: DefinedTerm
description: A W3C standard (terms confirmed to expand to https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials#) for credentials with a stated issuer and subject. Its issuer/credentialSubject/proof structure is reused here to make Turner's self-attestation-versus-external-witness distinction machine-checkable.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

DOAC (Description of a Career)
type: DefinedTerm
description: An early Semantic Web vocabulary for career/resume data, extending FOAF. Checked and rejected for this exercise: archived/inactive, with no namespace confirmable as stable and dereferenceable at authoring time.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

ResumeRDF
type: DefinedTerm
description: Another early Semantic Web resume/skill vocabulary (documented at rdfs.org/resume-rdf/). Checked and rejected for the same reason as DOAC: no namespace confirmable as stable and dereferenceable at authoring time.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

Convention T (Tarski)
type: DefinedTerm
description: Alfred Tarski's schema for defining truth in formal languages ('snow is white' is true iff snow is white), cited by Turner to argue a profile cannot make its own claim true by restating it. Applied here as the reason Meaning/Proof stages point OUTSIDE the claim resource to independent evidence.
in defined term set: Glossary: Ontologies, Proof, and Semantic Value

Example A — Led Enterprise Transformation
type: CreativeWork
abstract: Turner's flagship progression. A bare claim ('Led enterprise transformation') is grammatically fine but leaves 'enterprise' and 'transformation' unbound. Binding it to oplli:Position with oplli:jobTitle and oplli:company supplies Meaning. Adding schema:result-linked, PROV-O-provenanced outcome metrics — filling a confirmed gap in oplli: — supplies Proof.
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
position: 1

Example B — The Trust Loop
type: CreativeWork
abstract: Turner's self-referential claim ('I'm strategic because I say I'm strategic'), modeled as a W3C Verifiable Credential whose vc:issuer equals its own vc:credentialSubject — self-attestation by definition. The contrast case adds a distinct vc:issuer, sec:proof, and an oplli:Recommendation, the ontology's own native third-party-corroboration class.
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
position: 2

Example C — Quantified Personal Blanding
type: CreativeWork
abstract: "Generated $17M." is proof-shaped but not proof: the linked amount is a bare schema:QuantitativeValue, equally consistent with revenue, savings, pipeline, valuation, bookings or budget. Retyping it as schema:MonetaryAmount with schema:currency and a prov:wasGeneratedBy-linked, geographically scoped activity resolves what kind of $17M it is.
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
position: 3

Example D — Proof Metrics as Scale, Comparison and Timeframe
type: CreativeWork
abstract: "Raised customer retention from 72% to 91% in 18 months across a 4.2M-member portfolio" is rendered with minValue/maxValue/duration on one schema:QuantitativeValue plus a separately typed schema:Audience for portfolio size — turning four dimensions a reader would otherwise have to infer from prose into queryable facts.
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
position: 4

List every claim grouped by Semantic Value level
type: SoftwareSourceCode
programming language: SPARQL
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
text: PREFIX : <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl#> PREFIX oplli: <http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/linkedin#> PREFIX schema: <http://schema.org/> SELECT ?level ?claim (COALESCE(?summary, ?headline) AS ?claimText) WHERE { GRAPH <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl> { ?claim a :ProfessionalClaim ; :hasSemanticValueLevel ?level . OPTIONAL { ?claim oplli:positionSummary ?summary } OPTIONAL { ?claim oplli:headline ?headline } } } ORDER BY ?level ?claim
comment: The baseline query: confirms every claim resource in the file declares exactly one post:hasSemanticValueLevel and that its native oplli: text is retrievable regardless of whether it lives on positionSummary or headline.

Detect self-attested (Trust Loop) claims
type: SoftwareSourceCode
programming language: SPARQL
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
text: PREFIX vc: <https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials#> PREFIX sec: <https://w3id.org/security#> PREFIX oplli: <http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/linkedin#> SELECT ?claim ?headline WHERE { GRAPH <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl> { ?claim a vc:VerifiableCredential ; vc:credentialSubject ?subject ; vc:issuer ?subject ; oplli:headline ?headline . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?claim sec:proof ?anyProof } } }
comment: Tests the Trust Loop proposition directly: a claim is flagged as self-attested if and only if its vc:issuer is the exact same node as its vc:credentialSubject and it carries no sec:proof. Run against this graph, this returns exactly post:trustLoopClaim and nothing else — post:groundedStrategicClaim has a distinct vc:issuer and IS excluded.

Verify every Proof-stage claim points outside itself
type: SoftwareSourceCode
programming language: SPARQL
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
text: PREFIX : <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl#> PREFIX vc: <https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials#> PREFIX sec: <https://w3id.org/security#> PREFIX schema: <http://schema.org/> PREFIX oplli: <http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/linkedin#> SELECT ?claim (BOUND(?evidence) AS ?hasExternalEvidence) WHERE { GRAPH <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl> { ?claim a :ProfessionalClaim ; :hasSemanticValueLevel :Proof . OPTIONAL { { ?claim schema:result ?evidence } UNION { ?claim schema:about ?evidence } UNION { ?claim sec:proof ?evidence } UNION { ?claim oplli:recommendationsReceived ?evidence } FILTER(?evidence != ?claim) } } } ORDER BY ?claim
comment: Tests Tarski's Convention-T-derived proposition from the FAQ (a profile cannot make its own claim true by restating it): every row where ?hasExternalEvidence is false is a claim that calls itself post:Proof-level without actually pointing at a resource other than itself. Run against this graph, every row returns true.

Confirm the oplli: vocabulary gap empirically
type: SoftwareSourceCode
programming language: SPARQL
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
text: PREFIX : <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl#> PREFIX oplli: <http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/linkedin#> PREFIX schema: <http://schema.org/> PREFIX prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> SELECT ?claim WHERE { GRAPH <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl> { ?claim a :ProfessionalClaim, oplli:Position ; :hasSemanticValueLevel :Proof . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?claim ?oplliOutcomeProp ?outcome . FILTER(STRSTARTS(STR(?oplliOutcomeProp), STR(oplli:))) FILTER(?oplliOutcomeProp NOT IN (oplli:positionSummary, oplli:jobTitle, oplli:company, oplli:companySynopsis, oplli:startDate, oplli:endDate, oplli:title)) } } }
comment: Tests the FAQ/glossary claim that oplli: has no property for a Position's measurable outcome. This query looks for any oplli:-namespaced predicate on a Proof-level oplli:Position claim OTHER than oplli:'s known descriptive Position/JobTitle fields. Run against this graph, every Proof-level oplli:Position claim (post:positionA_proof, post:positionC_proof, post:positionD_proof) matches — none of them has an oplli: outcome property, because none exists to have.

Walk a claim's revision chain from Syntax to Proof
type: SoftwareSourceCode
programming language: SPARQL
is part of: Semantic Value on LinkedIn — Worked RDF Examples in oplli:, schema.org, PROV-O and W3C Verifiable Credentials
text: PREFIX : <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl#> PREFIX oplli: <http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/linkedin#> SELECT ?stage0 ?level0 ?stage1 ?level1 ?stage2 ?level2 WHERE { GRAPH <https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/DAV/demos/daas/turner-semantic-value-linkedin-proof-examples-claude_sonnet_5-1.ttl> { ?stage2 :revisionOf ?stage1 ; :hasSemanticValueLevel ?level2 . ?stage1 :revisionOf ?stage0 ; :hasSemanticValueLevel ?level1 . ?stage0 :hasSemanticValueLevel ?level0 . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?stage0 :revisionOf ?anyEarlier } } }
comment: Tests that post:revisionOf chains are well-formed three-hop paths ending at an unrevised Syntax-level claim. Run against this graph, this returns exactly the Example A chain (positionA_syntax → positionA_meaning → positionA_proof) — Example C's two-stage chain does not match a three-hop pattern, and Examples B/D have no post:revisionOf chain at all, both correctly, since B contrasts two independent claims and D has only one recorded stage.