Re: [Sem] Syntax and model-theoretic semantics: a complete proposal

On 12/04/2023 09:18, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> I extended my original proposal to include a fully opaque case, so 
> that it can represent both the fully opaque case (syntactic 
> predication) and the fully transparent case (semantic and modal 
> predications).
> Now the proposal comes with a completely specified abstract semantics, 
> etc.
> This proposal comes in three flavours, depending on the syntax chosen:
>
>  1. the Community Group syntax with TEP as it is described in its
>     final report (wiki: CG syntax specification
>     <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Semantics-(CG-syntax)-by-enrico>),
>
>  2. the variant which distinguishes syntactic from semantic quoted
>     triples (wiki: alt syntax specification
>     <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Semantics-(alt-syntax)-by-enrico>),
>
(2) is appealing conceptually but as a practical matter it may be 
difficult to explain. When it is the TEP, the data model is responsible; 
in (2), the data author is involved.

If a triple is used in both within a syntactic predication and within 
semantic predications it gets written twice. This may be seen as either 
an advantage or disadvantage.

> 3. the variant with a quoting operator which gives a syntactic reading 
> to arbitrary terms (wiki: alt syntax with quoted terms specification 
> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Semantics-(alt-syntax-with-quoted-terms)-by-enrico>).
Sorry but '<<triple>>' is already a valid string. % might work, maybe : 
%< s: :p :o >%


If we decide on a flavour , finding a syntax is not hard.

     Andy

> There is a wiki page describing each variant of the proposal.
> —e.