Re: An update on [Proposal: described vs stated triple terms]

> On 6. Aug 2024, at 10:50, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> of course, this is the correct answer:
> 
> ?s
> ?p
> ?o
> _:t1
> rdfs:states
> <<( :s :p :o )>>
> _:t1
> :a
> :b
> :s
> :p
> :o
> _:t2
> rdfs:reifies
> <<( :x :y :z )>>
> _:t2
> :c
> :d
> 
> —e.

Thanks, that is indeed the query result that I’m aiming for. 

>> On 6 Aug 2024, at 10:49, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>> 
>> I am not sure what is this discussion about.


My question is if this can be accomplished in SPARQL alone, without resorting to RDFS entailment.

Note that the corresponding RDFS entailment that I mentioned in my upadetd proposal [0] doesn’t use the subproperty relation between rdf:reifies and rdf:states, but adds a new entailment pattern:
    rdfs14
    If S contains:
        xxx rdf12:states <<( sss ppp ooo )>> .
    then S RDFS entails recognizing D:
        sss ppp ooo .
Because the main use case IMO will not be to search 'reified terms AND stated terms' but 'statements AND stated terms'


.t

[0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Aug/0007.html


>> Let me clarify the following.
>> By following the semantics in [1], which extends the baseline with a rdf:states property, the following will hold.
>> Given then graph:
>> 
>> _:t1 rdfs:states  <<( :s :p :o )>> ; 
>>      :a :b. 
>> _:t2 rdfs:reifies <<( :x :y :z )>> ; 
>>      :c :d. 
>> 
>> the SPARQL query
>> 
>> SELECT ?s ?p ?o
>> WHERE { ?s ?p ?o }
>> 
>> returns
>> 
>> ?s
>> ?p
>> ?o
>> _:t1
>> rdfs:states
>> <<( :s :p :o )>>
>> _:t1
>> :a
>> :b
>> :s
>> :p
>> :o
>> _:t2
>> rdfs:states
>> <<( :x :y :z )>>
>> _:t2
>> :c
>> :d
>> 
>> cheers
>> —e.
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff
>> 
>