Re: "Multi-Edge Support in RDFn" slides

How about 

    :A a :Lie .
    << :A a :Lie >> owl:sameAs :Aq .
    :Aq a :Lie .

Doesn’t that overcome RDF-star's syntactic safe guard against paradoxes? And if it does - I’m not a logician, so I’m not sure - aren’t the consequences even worse for RDF-star than for RDFn, as the paradox targets all occurrences of type << :A a :Lie >>, not only one instance as in RDFn’s case.

I haven’t fully understood how the RDF 1.x semantics tackles this topic [0] but as I said before my intuition is that going the way of occurrences (which in my understanding is a more generic term for both instances and subtypes, which - see OWL punning - are rather application specific categories) opens the same venue: interpreting a statement as a concrete occurrence of the type instead of as the type itself (as the RDF-star semantics proposes) separates the two, puts the occurrence in the extension of the type, and thereby avoids paradoxes in the semantics already.

Thomas


[0] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#technote


> On 9. Dec 2022, at 08:15, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Souri,
> 
> I added a link to the slides in the minutes of the call where you presented them.
> https://www.w3.org/2022/11/17-rdf-star-minutes.html
> 
> A few remarks about slides 8 and 9: 
> - what you call semantics in these slides is more related to the RDF abtract syntax [1] than the RDF semantics [2]. The former is about structural elements of RDF (IRIs, triples...) while the second is about the "things in the world" that the RDF graph is about.
> 
> - In those slides, I see no constraint about preventing triples to talk about themselves (which the CG report explicitly forbids [3]). This allows for something like
> 
>   :t1 a :Lie (:t1).
> 
> or, even more tricky to detect
> 
>   :t2 a :Truth (:t1).
>   :t1 a :Lie (:t2).
> 
> This kind of paradoxes may be tricky to model in terms of semantics....
> 
>   pa
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#concepts  "Note also that, by definition, an RDF-star triple cannot contain itself"
> 
> On 03/12/2022 00:21, Souripriya Das wrote:
>> Attached a revised version of the RDFn slide deck [1] that includes
>>  • (slide 8) new slide titled "RDFn Semantics: Essentials, in a few words"
>>  • (slide 9) corrected slide titled "RDFn Semantics: Essentials Beyond RDF" that now states that TI INTERSECT TE need not be an empty set and shows the corrected diagram
>>  • (slide 14) new slide titled "Enabling Explicit Naming in RDF-star, Serializations, and SPARQL-star" 
>> Thanks,
>> Souri.
>> 
>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2022Nov/att-0016/RDFn_WG_Slides.pdf
> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2022 13:26:11 UTC