Re: on entailments and triple terms

> On 19. Aug 2024, at 12:26, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 19 Aug 2024, at 12:16, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
>> 
>> RDF* and SPARQL* are defined to require something that might be called a simple * -entailment: any RDF triple is also an RDF* triple [0]. That captures a plausible and useful intuition. It has been implemented. It was successfull. It was deemed useful for bridging the RDF/LPG divide. This WG was chartered to standardize the approach.
> 
> As it has been noted also by Olaf, [0] does not relate at all to the current baseline.
> Moreover, in the current baseline triple terms are NOT triples.
> Simple *-entailment is not simple entailment as defined in the current baseline.
> SPARQL should be based on simple entailment (unless there is an explicit entailment regime). 
> Simple entailment in the current baseline is just BGP matching.

I’m clearly not arguing that the current baseline is good and ready, but that things need to be changed and extended. And you said on Friday that we shouldn’t use reification (which the current baseline is based on). So what exactly are you suggesting?

.t




> --e.
> 
>> This doesn’t say anything about the general usefulness and feasability of entailment on the semantic web. Addressing general questions concerning entailment is not the task of this WG. The RDF*/SPARQL* approach to entailment of statement terms as regular statements seems to work predictably. It seems like it can be used to support the semantics of the proposed "rdfs:states" in SPARQL-star.
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>>> 
>>> peter
>>> 
>> 
>> [0] Olaf Hartig: Foundations of RDF* and SPARQL* - An Alternative Approach to
>>     Statement-Level Metadata in RDF. In Proceedings of the 11th Alberto Mendelzon
>>     International Workshop on Foundations of Data Management (AMW), Montevideo,
>>     Uruguay, June 2017
>>     http://olafhartig.de/files/Hartig_AMW2017_RDFStar.pdf

Received on Monday, 19 August 2024 10:42:30 UTC