Re: fewer entailments is better?

On 3/9/23 16:13, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> 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.

I believe that this argument rests on the assumptions that there is one kind 
of quoted triple and that all quoted triples share a semantic core of 
semi-opacity.  Neither of these has been adopted by the working group.  For 
example, Enrico's proposals appear to have several kinds of quoted triples. 
See also the original proposal for RDF* that has a different semantic basis.

peter

Received on Friday, 10 March 2023 15:22:54 UTC