Re: A question about referential opacity (again)

Graph terms add a new level of complexity for semantics.

What kind of semantics is to be used?  Does it have to be modal?

What does a graph term denote?  The graph?  Some idealization of the graph?  A 
set of interpretations?

What entailment relationship is to be used between graph terms?  Equality? 
Entailment?  Which entailment?  Canonicalization?

Are graph terms (always) named?  What does a named graph term denote?


Graph terms add a new level of complexity for syntax.

Are graph terms disjoint from triple terms?  Is there a level of compliance 
for just triple terms?

Are named graph terms additive in all syntaxes?  (They have to be additive in 
quad syntaxes if the fourth element is the name of a graph term.)


Graph terms add a new level of complexity for uses.

What are graph terms to be used for?  Events?  Provenance?  Beliefs?  Change? 
Time? Knowledge?  Other modals?


No matter what benefits graph terms provide I see lots of extra complexity. 
Although there are still outstanding issue for triple terms, many issues have 
already been decided.  Switching to graph terms opens up all issues again.

peter



On 10/21/23 09:15, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 21. Oct 2023, at 14:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
[...]

>> PPS:  There are other ways of obtaining opacity.  If the working group switches to graph terms the kind of semantics described above might not be adequate and some other treatment might have to be used.
> 
> I was meaning to ask you about that, as you voiced such concerns in the WG meeting last week. I just can’t see which profound changes to the semantics a switch from Triple Terms to Graph Terms would incur or require, so I assume those are technicalities. The only "issue" I can see is the need for transparent blank nodes going away, but that should make things easier, not harder.
> 
> Anyway, I think the increase in usability far outweighs any additional effort in adjusting the semantics (although, of course, I’m not the one who would have to adjust them ;-), but that topic probably should be discussed in a separate thread.
> 
> Thomas

Received on Saturday, 21 October 2023 14:00:05 UTC