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

It seems to me that in your semantics the statement
𝓘[α](t) = α(t) if t ∈ B ⋃ T ∖ Gnd
means that the interpretation of any non ground term, including embedded triples, is mapped directly as a resource, regardless from its constituents.
This sounds roughly “syntactic predication”, namely the “semantics of embedded triples” does not depend on their constituents, but just on their syntactic form.
—e.

On 27 Mar 2023, at 19:50, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:

Le 27/03/2023 à 19:44, Franconi Enrico a écrit :
ok, fair enough.
Still, the semantics of  embedded triples (which is syntactic predication)

What does this sentence mean? Is there a thing called "the semantics of embedded triples"? I thought that was what this WG is supposed to define. If it is known to be "syntactic predication", then our work is (almost) done. If you are referring to the az-semantics of embedded triples, then it is *not* syntactic predication. The az-interpretation does not interpret anything in embedded triples as syntactic entities. IRIs are always interpreted as arbitrary resources of the domain, regardless of where they are in the RDF-star graph under consideration.

Likewise, I do not think az-semantics is semantic predication, as the interpretation of the embedded triples is an arbitrary resource that may have nothing to do with the assertion made.

However, possibly, a semantic extension of az-semantics can lead to something that supports semantic predication.

--AZ

does not match the translation into subject, predicate, object triples (which is semantic predication).
—e.
On 27 Mar 2023, at 19:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

You mean the first clause in the satisfaction definition?   My reading is that this is only for triples in G, i.e., asserted triples, not triples that are constituents of triples in G.

peter


On 3/27/23 13:35, Franconi Enrico wrote:
and I believe that the assertion comes from:
(𝓘[α](/s/), 𝓘[α](/o/)) ∈ 𝓘_EXT (𝓘[α](/p/))
—e.
On 27 Mar 2023, at 19:34, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

I believe that it is not semantic predication, since it seems to me that you map any non ground triple via \alpha directly to a resource, regardless on the interpretation of its constituents.
—e.

On 27 Mar 2023, at 19:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you sure?  My reading is that this is semantic predication without assertion.    Consider the RDF graph { (( s p o ) q n) }.

A model of this graph is
( { t' s' o' n' }, { p', q', rs', rp', ro' }, JS, {}, JT, JEXT, rs', rp' ro' )
with JS mapping s to s', o to o', n to n', p to p', and o to o',
JT( (s p o) ) =  t',
JEXT(q') = { ( t', n' ) }
JEXT(p') = {}
JEXT(rs') = { ( t', s' ) }
JEXT(rp') = { ( t', p' ) }
JEXT(ro') = { ( t', o' ) }

Note that JS has to map to resources or properties as in the RDF 1.1 semantics.


In this semantics there is no entailment from { (( s p o) q n } to { (s p o)}
but there is entailment from { ((s p "42"^^xsd:int) q n) } to
{ ((s p "42"^^xsd:integer) q n) } if xsd:int and xsd:integer are recognized datatypes.

peter


On 3/27/23 13:02, Franconi Enrico wrote:
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> 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%7C693c906cc080466b91fa08db2eebc2d4%7C9251326703e3401a80d4c58ed6674e3b%7C0%7C0%7C638155362338521573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hYM61pSRAoTnZBHB7%2BZWQVKTy9qzV0WWXoew0E%2Fbxjk%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%7C693c906cc080466b91fa08db2eebc2d4%7C9251326703e3401a80d4c58ed6674e3b%7C0%7C0%7C638155362338521573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oxukC1hoZu7N6BSWQy6bdBhK3UBYWGZC69FAgbDlCBg%3D&reserved=0





--
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%7C693c906cc080466b91fa08db2eebc2d4%7C9251326703e3401a80d4c58ed6674e3b%7C0%7C0%7C638155362338521573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oxukC1hoZu7N6BSWQy6bdBhK3UBYWGZC69FAgbDlCBg%3D&reserved=0