- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:04:01 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
The technical report published in arXiv about RDF* (https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3399) in 2014 (revised 2019 then 2021) does say that embedded triples are syntactic sugar for RDF reification (section 3.2), although it does not use the phrase "syntactic sugar". --AZ Le 19/01/2023 à 02:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit : > How far does this history go back? Wasn't the original semantics for > RDF* a semantics that treats embedded triples as syntactic sugar for RDF > reification? > > > peter > > > > On 1/17/23 08:35, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: >> Dear Enrico, all, >> >> following the discussion we had during the last call [1], I would like >> to give a more detail overview of our rationale when designing the >> RDF-star semantics in the CG report [2], and defuse a few >> misunderstandings. >> >> 1. It was not the intention to make RDF-star a modal logic >> >> I know that examples such that ":alice :belives << :s :p :o >>." >> strongly point in the direction of modal logic, and that such examples >> have been largely used to "sell" RDF-star. I agree that such examples >> are misleading, and we actually tried to avoid such examples in the CG >> report. >> >> The intention was to make RDF-star quoted triples opaque, and >> providing as little inferences as possible -- leaving it open for >> semantic extensions to provide more inferences. >> >> >> 2. Ground quoted triples are similar to literals >> >> Our initial attempt was to define from scratch a model theoretic >> semantics of RDF-star, where ground quoted triples (i.e. quoted >> triples containing no blank node) were constrained to denoted >> themselves. In other words, we consider that RDF(-star) triples (as >> defined by the specification) are conceptual objects that exist in the >> world (in the same way that graphs, classes and properties exist), and >> that ground quoted triples did denote exactly them. >> >> In that sense, ground quoted triples are very much like literals >> (except that they are allowed in the subject position). >> >> >> 3. Blank node rain on our parade (as they usually do) >> >> Of course, things get tricky when we take blank nodes into account. >> >> Just like the RDF1.1 Semantics, our proposal was built in two steps : >> - define the semantics of ground RFD-star graphs (following the >> rationale described above) >> - deal with blank node >> >> The second step was quite complicated, and it raised some questions >> about whether this brand new semantics was sound. An alternative way >> was therefore proposed, to rely on the battle-tested RDF semantics. >> And that's where we are now. >> >> Honestly, I would rather give another try at /adapting /the current >> RDF semantics to take into account quoted graphs, than keeping the >> layered approach that we currently have. >> >> pa >> >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html#t03 >> [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#rdf-star-semantics >> -- Antoine Zimmermann École des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel CS 62362 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 49 97 02 http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2023 17:05:26 UTC