- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:50:54 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
What is a "TEP"? peter On 3/23/23 07:23, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > > On 20/03/2023 23:21, Franconi Enrico wrote: >> >>> On 20 Mar 2023, at 13:40, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> What it boils down to is that the exact 'unstar:' namespace does not really >>> matter, as it is an "implementation detail"... >>> >>> Another way would have been to start by saying; >>> "find an IRI prefix that is not never used in the graph(s) under >>> consideration and called that unstar:" >> >> I agree. >> >>>> Roughly speaking, an RDF-star triple T is RDF-star entailed by RDF-star >>>> graph G if and only if L(G) RDF-1.1 simply entails L(T). >>> >>> I assume that 'L' means the same as 'unstar'? In that case, yes, I agree. >>> >> Yes. >>> >>> Note also that, while we agree on this, this does *not* mean that G and >>> unstar(G)/L(G) have the /same/ entailments... (I don't mean to be petty here) >>> >> Right, it holds strictly only in the sense I wrote previously. >>>> Notice that the game changes already for extensions such just adding >>>> owl:sameas, where the above is not true anymore. >>> I don't see why. Could you develop? >> >> Observe the following (with semantic predication): >> <<:a :b :c>> owl:sameas <<:d :e :f>> . >> entails (and it is entailed by) >> :a owl:sameas :d . >> :b owl:sameas :e . >> :c owl:sameas :f . >> but this can not be captured with the L/unstar transformation under RDF 1.1 >> simple entailment augmented with owl:sameas. > Indeed. The intention of the CG semantics was to focus on syntactic > predication for quoted triples, > and rely on TEPs for emulating (so to speak) semantic predication. > > So the above inferences are, by design, not supported by the CG semantics. > >> >> cheers >> —e. >>
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2023 18:51:08 UTC