Re: fewer entailments is better?

On 3/10/23 12:50, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes, semantic extensions only add entailments.  But this does not imply that a 
particular semantics for a particular form of quoted triples is better than 
other semantics for other forms of quoted triple just because the semantics 
has fewer entailments.  If this was the case, then a semantics that produced 
no extra entailments at all would be the best.

I think that the argument has to go along the lines that a particular 
semantics for a particular kind of quoted triples is best because it produces 
the right entailments for the kind of quoted triples.  If semantic extensions 
of this semantics produces the right entailments for other kinds of quoted 
triples then that is a bonus.

>> 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

peter

Received on Friday, 10 March 2023 18:00:26 UTC