- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:09:47 -0500
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
That's what I thought. Let's please not ignore the pre-CG history of RDF*. peter On 1/19/23 12:04, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > 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 >>> >
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2023 17:10:01 UTC