Re: transparency and entailment

To me, transparency means:
given a graph G, II is the set of all IRIs appearing in G and BB is the set of all bnode symbols appearing in G.
Then, ∀ i∈II and b∈BB, i and b have the same denotation non matter where they appear within the graph.

I guess that your definition below is somehow different, but probably it boils down to mine, which is more clear, I guess.
—e.


> On 16 Feb 2024, at 18:04, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> On 09/02/2024 20:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> There was some discussion of transparency in the semantics call today, with disagreement over just what transparency means.
>> 
>> My view is that transparency (for well-formed graphs) means that entailments are exactly the same if a subject, predicate, or object in a quoted triple is replaced by a semantically identical identifier.  So if an option for << e | s p o >> is transparent in D-entailment then
>> 
>> << :e | :s :p "4"^^xsd:integer >> :a :b .
>> 
>> entails
>> 
>> << :e | :s :p "04"^^xsd:integer >> :a :b .
>> 
>> in that option.
> 
> that's also my interpretation of "transparency".
> 
> (and I assume that the entailment in your example above works both ways)
> 
>> 
>> 
>> peter
>> 
> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>

Received on Saturday, 17 February 2024 15:12:25 UTC