Re: summary of the Semantics TF discussion of last friday

Hi Enrico,

On 01/02/2024 17:00, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Hi everybdy,
> I am in a conference full time, so I don't have much time to focus on 
> rdf-star.
> But I would like to notice that the semantics for the sugar+ proposal 
> is strongly related with my semantic proposal at 
> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Semantics%3A-Andy%27s-proposal>,

This email of you /was/ taken into account in the table. In fact the 2nd 
link of the last column contains a document where I quote your email, as 
the primary source of the semantics for the "edge statement / RDFn" 
approach (with only a little adaptation to the abstract syntax) : 
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/rdfn-semantics.md


However, I disagree when you present it as a semantics for the sugar+ 
proposal. Your email starts by extending the abstract syntax with a new 
kind of terms called tripleOccurrence . By contrast, the sugar+ proposal 
does not change the abstract syntax.


> namely the sugar+ proposal can be provably seen as the 
> "implementation" of my semantics for the original Andy's proposal.

Ah, but we are talking about a different "Andy's proposal" ! 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0000.html 
(I know, thinks are getting messy, hence my urge to make this table!). I 
didn't keep that proposal in the table because, in my opinion, it is a 
mix of the "triple statement" and "edge statement" proposals, without 
adding anything substantially new.

   pa

> So, the circle can be closed: sugar+ is equivalent to Andy's proposal 
> under my (quite simple and obvious) semantics.
> --e.
>
>> On 30 Jan 2024, at 20:41, Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>> <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I just updated the seeking-consensus table [1] with two rows that 
>> summarize the point I made during the Semantics TF last Friday. 
>> Namely, that Antoine Zimmermann's proposed semantics for RDF-star 
>> [2], back in April, could easily be adapted to the proposals we have 
>> on the table (actually, it could be used as-is for the triple-terms 
>> proposal).
>>
>> What I really like about this proposal is that, just like we have a 
>> common concrete syntax for all proposals, we can use very similar 
>> definitions of "interpretation" and "satisfaction", leaving the most 
>> significant difference at the abstract syntax level.
>>
>> Even better, Antoine proposes a semantic extension called 
>> "az-RDF-reification semantics", where
>>
>>     :e rdf:nameOf <<(:s :p :o)>>.
>>
>> would actually *entail*
>>
>>     :e rdf:nameOf [
>>         rdf:subject :s ;
>>         rdf:predicate :p ;
>>         rdf:object :o ;
>>     ].
>>
>> Rings a bell ? This is what << :e | :s :p :o >> expands to under the 
>> "sugar+" proposal! :-)
>>
>> Based on my extrapolation of Antoine's semantics for the 
>> edge-proposal [1], this semantic extension could also be adapted to 
>> achieve the same result for the edge-statements proposal.
>>
>>     pa
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html

>> [2] https://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/W3C/RDF-star-semantics/
>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>