Re: Using rdf:asserts (for Truth) and rdf:reifies (for Hypothesis) to be on par with relational and LPG

> On 23. Aug 2024, at 14:43, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> On 23 Aug 2024, at 14:27, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
>> Yes, I know this is tricky without entailment, but I have shown a way - combining an unambiguous definition of rdfs:asserts (it expects the triple term to be true in the graph) with the annotation syntax (which captures that expectation) and a configuration of SPARQL-star (to map BGP over a union of triples and rdfs:stated triple terms).
> 
> Thomas, I don't understand why you want to emulate the missing entailments (that you don't want in RDFS)

I certainly want them in RDFS. What makes you think that I don’t want them there?

> within basic SPARQL. Eventually, the  complexity will be the same as having it natively in RDFS. As a matter of facts, you want to implement part of typical RDFS reasoning in SPARQL (but not in simple entailment)

I understand that we can’t have that sort of entailment in simple RDF. That’s why I try to emulate it in SPARQL. I want the user to not have to explicitly join queries over standard triples and rdfs:stated triple terms. To the user there should be no difference (unless of course s/he explicitly makes that distinction in the query)

> . And why do you believe that your use case deserves this special bizzarre

really not bizarre

> and non-standard treatment

because the standard often leans towards formal purity, not usability
 
> , as oppsed to, say, rdfs:subClassOf, which seems to me much more important that rdfs:asserts.

Because to me it seems that rdfs:states is much more important, especially in the context of our WG task, and because in contrast to say rdfs:subClassOf it is very predictable


.t

> —e
> .

Received on Friday, 23 August 2024 14:39:39 UTC