Re: transparency and entailment

I don’t know why named graphs should play a role in my characterisation.
Given a model of a RDF graph, if an IRI or a bnode or a literal is interpreted in the same way regardless of where it does appear in the graph, then that IRI or bnode or literal has a transparent interpretation.
I stick with that.
—e.

On 19 Feb 2024, at 13:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

It appears to me that a modal semantics using named graphs would fit your characterization but not be transparent.

peter

On 2/19/24 06:52, Franconi Enrico wrote:
On 17 Feb 2024, at 20:18, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

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.
My characterisation is sufficient whenever RDF has a direct model-theoretic semantics, which the CG semantics is not (it is based on a translation).
RDF-star will have a direct model theoretic semantics, if I am going to remain in the WG :-)
—e.

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>