- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 18:29:42 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Are there any changes to "simple entailment"? (I don't see any but I'd like confirmation or not) What happens with: :s rdf:reifies 123 . because reif1 sss rdf:reifies ooo. ooo rdf:type rdf:Proposition . means 123 rdf:type rdf:Proposition Does there need to be a way of putting it outside RDF Semantics? (if it's there, I'm not seeing it.) [I+A](t) = TRUE implies <[I+A](t.o), [I+A](rdf:Proposition)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type)) if t.p is rdf:reifies ?? add "and t.o is a triple term" to align with the RDF Concepts "SHOULD NOT" reif1++ sss rdf:reifies ooo . ooo rdf:type rdf:type rdf:TripleTerm . Andy On 09/12/2024 17:23, Franconi Enrico wrote: > We had an interesting Semantics TF meeting last Friday, and we concluded > a couple of things: > > 1. It would be interesting to consider, instead of the currently > approved alternative baseline, a simpler more “liberal” approach: a > new property rdf:reifies is introduced, which is used to express > reification - namely the relationship between a reifier (sometimes > called “token") and an abstract triple term. In order to express > reification, *only* the rdf:reifies (or any sub property of it) > could be used. Other usages of triple terms (namely without being > object of a rdf:reifies property or of any of its subproperty) is > not forbidden (hence the name: “liberal” approach), but they would > not be having the meaning of a reification. > 2. We discussed the possible type of the object of rdf:reifies: it > could be rdf:Proposition. > > This is captured - with many details still to be discussed - in > <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22 > <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22>>. > > —e.
Received on Monday, 9 December 2024 18:29:48 UTC