Re: [Sem] Yet another formal semantics for RDF-star

Dear Antoine,

I also have a firsts comments (also only after a quick look, so sorry in advance for the missinterpretation :) ):

1. I noticed that you did not keep the semi-transparency (or however we call it, the term seems not really accurate) of blank nodes, meaning that for example

:a :b <<:c :d :e>>.
:c :p :o.

entails

:a :b <<_:x :d :e>>.
_:y :p :o.

I guess that is intended. So, my question: do we want that? Are there use cases where we would like to only entail these triples with „matching“ blank nodes? What are your thoughts about that?

I guess currently SPARQL would not retrieve yes, if I do

ASK {:a :b <<_:x :d :e>>. _:x :p :o.}

on the graph

:a :b <<:l :d :e>>.
:c :p :o.

Would that be a problem?


2. It is also interesting to note that <<_:x :p :o>> and <<_:y :p :o>> can have different meanings while in the graph

:a :b <<_:x :p :o>>.
:c :d <<_: x :p :o>>.

The expression <<_:x :p :o>> does only have one meaning and needs to pint to the same resource in both triples. So, if I make a statement like

:bob :smufs <<_:x :can :fly>>.

and try to give it „informal semantics“ (if that is even a thing), how do I need to see the blank node? Neither

„Bob smurfs that there exists an x which can fly“ nor „There exists an x about which bob smurfs that it can fly“

seem to be correct here based on my previous observations. So, how do you see these blank nodes. I guess I should not try to translate them as I just did, but how can I intuitively understand them in your theory?

Kind regards,
Dörthe

Am 27.03.2023 um 19:02 schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it<mailto:franconi@inf.unibz.it>>:

I looked at it carefully. This seems to characterise more or less the model theory of what I call syntactic predication, which is more or less the current definition of <<.,.,.>>.
Some comments - tell me if I’m wrong.
Some difference I note is that a syntactically embedded triple would still entail the truth of the triple itself, which probably is not intended, and that the reification “implements” the full semantic predication (ie., it would be fully transparent).
Moreover, there is still the open discussion about injectivity, and the interoperation, if desired, with the TEP and/or with the full semantic predication.
cheers
—e,


On 27 Mar 2023, at 18:08, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr<mailto:antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>> wrote:

Le 27/03/2023 à 17:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
It would be useful to have some more explanation and some examples.

Yes, it is brutally asserting the definitions and nothing else.

From my quick read this appears to be very lose to to using RDF reification plus uniqueness of triples.

Yes. The one benefit that I see is that it does not require introducing a vocabulary that would "reserve" some URIs.

In the Satisfaction section it appears that either a nor J[a] is defined for blank nodes.

Damn, I sometimes used bold face T as if it meant the set of all terms, while it is in fact defined as the set of RDF-star triples.

α should be defined on "B ⋃ T ∖ Gnd".
There is an unfortunate copy-paste error before the colon of the 1st paragraph in section "az-Satisfaction"("𝓘[α](t) = : T → Δ" should be "𝓘[α]: T → Δ" and the second item of the first bullet list of this section should have "B ⋃ T ∖ Gnd" instead of "T ⋃ Gnd".

I'll correct that.

--AZ


peter
On 3/27/23 09:09, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
This is mostly for the semantics task force.

I wrote this:
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emse.fr%2F~zimmermann%2FW3C%2FRDF-star-semantics%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cfranconi%40inf.unibz.it%7C0af42a10bb17440a339608db2edd762c%7C9251326703e3401a80d4c58ed6674e3b%7C0%7C0%7C638155300922073245%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6uRqnTJKbGqC0B321HKqZRihQL0MdSw55mCJars9kFg%3D&reserved=0


The idea is that embedded triples are interpreted as arbitrary resources and the resources denoted by the subject, predicate, and object of an embedded triple are connected (semantically) to the embedded-triple-resource via 3 properties that depend on the interpretation.

Now, please comment and destroy this proposal :)

--
Antoine Zimmermann
ISI - Institut Henri Fayol
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emse.fr%2F~zimmermann%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cfranconi%40inf.unibz.it%7C0af42a10bb17440a339608db2edd762c%7C9251326703e3401a80d4c58ed6674e3b%7C0%7C0%7C638155300922073245%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Uq9jD3AqFfA1fbVNzL6X3Fbrw49ESs6uHuBe3jC1Ago%3D&reserved=0