Re: "Multi-Edge Support in RDFn" slides

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&amp;data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=x61ea9uGNkcMNJLZFMiX4%2B2elNcqnQB3eTX%2BlysFLD4%3D&amp;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&amp;data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=XDZozEyQE6yi8CkARe4KLO38V4x15R4TV46wPn5XFqU%3D&amp;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&amp;data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=U8QWDacb1%2Fx4y6HDjj1%2FawhONFnadtqUZvaW50kuCbI%3D&amp;reserved=0

> > [2] 
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Frdf11-mt%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927571995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=OQMMkCw4qnQqubzxpM4lkd6HFhlGh5%2B58of2tx62kIw%3D&amp;reserved=0

> > [3] 
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2F12%2Frdf-star.html%23concepts&amp;data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927728180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=M9PhFlvX5VqbsWG%2BXujpw3c%2F2Q04u6rxZv3y4%2Ba8%2BI0%3D&amp;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&amp;data=05%7C01%7Colaf.hartig%40liu.se%7C0f1e50a1701d4bcbcc8a08dadd0d9c89%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C638065347927728180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=Te3%2B28fdhArCOBqmb4j30K1UBxdAhXDqdan5e2zzohM%3D&amp;reserved=0

> > <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2022 21:29:28 UTC