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

Joining the discussion a bit late, sorry

On 27/03/2023 20:42, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Also, I believe that the semantics I propose is compatible with 
> SPARQL-star (as defined currently) in the sense that, for any RDF-star 
> graph Q if you do ASK { Q } on a dataset that only contains a default 
> graph G, the answer is "true" iff G az-entails Q (this may have to be 
> verified).
 From my reading of your proposal, it also seems to me that this 
az-entails is compatible with SPARQL-star,
and for that reason I like it very much (1) :)

Indeed, to answer Peter's question about "what do you want", I think 
"being compatible with the current definition of SPARQL-star" should be 
high on our list. Because SPARQL-star has been largely implemented 
already, and if many people do not really care about the subtleties of 
the semantics, I believe they care about SPARQL.

Which of course does not mean that we should not /also/ look closely at 
use cases!

   pa

(1) Also, I find the definition of the proposed semantics quite elegant, 
especially how it nicely extends to az-RDF reificaion interpretations. 
Kudos.