Re: Event Updated: RDF-star WG biweekly meeting

Dear Enrico,

Am 29.08.2024 um 12:16 schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>:



On 29 Aug 2024, at 11:46, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de> wrote:

I totally understand why. I so far also disliked the set IP in RDF semantics and now (because of you) finally understood why we need it in the first place.

I am not sure whether this was done on purpose or not, but without IP you couldn’t do “meta modelling” in RDF, namely having properties not only in property position but also in subject/object position.

That you could also do by starting IEXT in IR and mapping the non-predicates to the empty set. It is less easy when you add that all properties are in a property class (but possible of course).

Also, in this way Pat & al. (possibly unwillingly) made a perfect correspondence with F-Logic by Michael Kifer. This also allows for the full equivalence with a first order approach where triples have the semantics of a single ternary T/3 predicate.

These two things I knew, but in my opinion the double mapping, i.e. applying IEXT after IS is enough to get there. This by the way even allows quantification over the predicate since we quantify over  IR and not over 2^(IPxIP) which would lead to higher order. I see how we both like these kinds of conversations ;)

Kind regards,
Dörthe

—e.