Re: fewer entailments is better?

dear Peter,

On 07/03/2023 18:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I've been hearing claims that having fewer entailments for quoted 
> triples is somehow better because one could always just craft a 
> semantic extension that adds in the extra entailments.  I don't view 
> this as a valid argument because, as far as I have seen, there has not 
> been a semantic extension created for this purpose and so it is not 
> possible to determine whether the extension is reasonable.

The argument is not that /one/ particular semantic extension could be 
created to support all extra entailment that people could think of. The 
argument is that it is the job of semantic extensions /in general/ to 
specify additional entailment on top of the base semantics.

The rationale for "less entailment is better" is that, because RDF 
semantics is monotonic, any entailment that we bake into the core 
semantics would have to be "inherited" by /all/ semantics extensions, 
including RDF-S and OWL...

Does that make more sense?

>
> peter
>
> PS: See 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Jan/0013.html 
> for a claim along these lines.
>
>