Re: fewer entailments is better?

On 10/03/2023 16:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
While I favor this assumption, I don't believe that this argument ("less 
entailment is better") rests on this particular assumption. Whichever 
semantics the WG adopts, all semantics extensions will have to deal with 
it and all the entailments that it, well, entails.
> 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.
   pa

>
> peter
>
>