Re: Semantic Predication: 4 - more worked out examples

On 17 Feb 2023, at 09:54, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:

When using :event-created, assuming it is defined to be a TEP, the
trick is not needed and one gets the desired outcome that the embedded
triple is transparent in the triple with :event-created. Desired
outcome here means that

<<:catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :alice>>
                                rdf:type :cataloging ;
                                :event-created "2022-07-01"^^xsd:date.
:alice owl:sameAs :alicia .

entails

<<:catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :alicia>>
                                :event-created "2022-07-01"^^xsd:date.

when considering the OWL semantics of owl:sameAs. It would, however,
not entail

<<:catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :alicia>>
                                rdf:type :cataloging.

Whether additionally entailing the latter is desirable or not depends
on the use case I would say.
Well, but we are talking about THIS use case class.
Therefore it should entail necessarily, among other triples,

<<:catalog-entry-1 dct:creator :alicia>> rdf:type :cataloging.

(note that the same holds for the modal/epistemic predication use case class).
So, for these use case classes, the counterexample stands.

Regarding the syntactic predication class of use cases, maybe this works, but it may depend on how people expects the behaviour of this class to be, which it seems to me has not agreed upon yet.

But the worst part of TEP is that it is not compositional, and this is really bad for a model theoretic semantics.

And I understand now that your proposal is to enable users to make this intention explicit by giving them two different forms of embedded triples (or even a third form for the modal /epistemic predication).

Indeed :-)

—e.