Re: "Multi-Edge Support in RDFn" slides

Hmm, right, I messed it up: :Aq doesn’t refer to itself.
How about this one then:

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

Or this one:

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


Maybe I’m still messing it up, but in principle the fact that I can replace the quoted triple by an IRI that has the exact same meaning (which is how owl:sameAs is defined) should be enough to outmaneuver the syntactic constraint meant to prevent paradoxes. Right?

> On 13. Dec 2022, at 22:29, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
> 
> 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 21:52:08 UTC