- From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:29:12 +0000
- To: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Hi Thomas, Can you please explain what the paradox or problem is that you think your example illustrates. I fail to see it. Thanks, Olaf On tis, 2022-12-13 at 14:25 +0100, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Frdf-mt%2F%23technote&data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x61ea9uGNkcMNJLZFMiX4%2B2elNcqnQB3eTX%2BlysFLD4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2022%2F11%2F17-rdf-star-minutes.html&data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XDZozEyQE6yi8CkARe4KLO38V4x15R4TV46wPn5XFqU%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Frdf11-concepts%2F&data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U8QWDacb1%2Fx4y6HDjj1%2FawhONFnadtqUZvaW50kuCbI%3D&reserved=0 > > [2] > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Frdf11-mt%2F&data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OQMMkCw4qnQqubzxpM4lkd6HFhlGh5%2B58of2tx62kIw%3D&reserved=0 > > [3] > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2F12%2Frdf-star.html%23concepts&data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927728180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M9PhFlvX5VqbsWG%2BXujpw3c%2F2Q04u6rxZv3y4%2Ba8%2BI0%3D&reserved=0 > > "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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fpublic-rdf-star-wg%2F2022Nov%2Fatt-0016%2FRDFn_WG_Slides.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927728180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Te3%2B28fdhArCOBqmb4j30K1UBxdAhXDqdan5e2zzohM%3D&reserved=0 > > <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc> > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2022 21:29:28 UTC