Re: on entailments and triple terms

Look at the SPARQL example at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff#facts

—e.

On 19 Aug 2024, at 12:52, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

On 19 Aug 2024, at 12:42, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
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?

I am arguing that your proposal to have SPARQL-* is not acceptable if we keep the current baseline.
The current baseline is compatible with the proposal to extend RDFS with rdfs:states as in [1].
—e.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff


[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