Re: transparency and entailment

I think that this characterization is not sufficient for transparency. 
Consider the CG semantics, which is a macro-expansion that then uses the usual 
RDF semantics, which does satisfy your criterion.  But the CG version of 
quoted triples is not transparent.

peter

PS:  I suspect that you would want to include literals as well.

On 2/17/24 10:12, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> 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 19:18:33 UTC