Re: N3 semantics new-new proposal

Dear Pierre-Antoine,

Thank you for your proposal, I am still thinking about it and have a few first questions/remarks:


1. Can you explain, why  _:x :says { _:x a :Unicorn } is equivalent to _:x :says { _:y a :Unicorn }?



According to your interpretation, { _:x a :Unicorn } and { _:y a :Unicorn } have different interpretations. They map to different resources in the domain of discourse. Q_I goes from the domain to the set of graphs and is injective and the interpretation of a graph x is Q_I^-1(x) if x is in the image of Q_I.  Or is the mapping  Q_I to some set of graphs?

For the interpretation of the triple, you can apply renaming to the variables of the graph, but this renaming needs to be a bijection, so the only way to go from
_:x :says { _:x a :Unicorn } to _:x :says { _:y a :Unicorn }

is

_:x :says { _:x a :Unicorn } to _:y :says { _:y a :Unicorn } (using \beta)

 and then  use the same A for _:y which before could be used for _:x, but even then I cannot be sure that the triple holds for    { _:y a :Unicorn } in the object position. Or am I missing something?

I would like if { _:x a :Unicorn } and { _:y a :Unicorn } had the same meaning or at least could have the same meaning. Why don’t we need that?


2.  Your entailment

:alice :smurfs { :bob :likes _:x }.

To


_:x :smurfs { :bob :likes _:x }.

Has as a consequences that

:alice :smurfs { :bob :likes _:x }.
{?x :smurfs {:bob :likes ?x}}={?x a :auto-smurf}.

Leads to

_:x a :auto-smurf.

I think that could be a problem.


I am still preparing more questions (but I have to think about log:notIncludes first :) ).

Kind regards,
Dörthe



Am 29.11.2021 um 15:33 schrieb Doerthe Arndt <doerthe_arndt@yahoo.de<mailto:doerthe_arndt@yahoo.de>>:



----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -----
Von: Jos De Roo <josderoo@gmail.com<mailto:josderoo@gmail.com>>
An: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu<mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>>
CC: public-n3-dev@w3.org<mailto:public-n3-dev@w3.org> <public-n3-dev@w3.org<mailto:public-n3-dev@w3.org>>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. November 2021, 23:19:47 MEZ
Betreff: Re: N3 semantics new-new proposal

Hi Pierre-Antoine,

This is just a quick feedback about the very last paragraph ;-)

Looking at log:notIncludes I found a floundering issue in our implementation.
It is fixed in the latest EYE which now expects the object of log:notIncludes
to be ground at reasoning time.

So only

:gang :contains :bob, :charlie.
:alice :says { :bob :name "bob" }.
{
  :alice :says _:g.
  _:g log:notIncludes { _:s :name "bob" }.
  :gang :contains _:s.
} => {
  :alice :ignores _:s.
}.

entails

:alice :ignores :charlie.

-- https://josd.github.io<https://josd.github.io/>


On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:39 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu<mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>> wrote:
Hi all,

I have a new proposal (now in a more readable format).

https://pad.lamyne.org/xZF7gcnxTLSNKdueLBYv2A


Note that I haven't checked it in depth yet. And that I haven't found a
satisfying way to model the semantics of log:notIncludes yet :-/

   best