Re: transparency and entailment

Of course, I have to rule out semantics where the same IRI or bnode symbol is transformed and given different interpretations (like :s and “s” in your example, or like the CG semantics).
In my case, this would count as TWO different symbols.
—e.

> On 19 Feb 2024, at 14:13, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Aah, yes, I see how a modal semantics would violate your criterion.
> 
> But what about rolling up the CG semantics, something along the lines of
> 
> I(a b <<s p o>>) = true  iff
>  < I(a), IQ(<<s p o>>) > in EXT(I(b))
>  and < IQ(<<s p o>>), I("s"^^xsd:string) > in EXT(rdf:subject) if s is an IRI
>  and ...
> 
> This seems to match your criterion but is not transparent.
> 
> Admittedly it is a strange semantics, but you haven't ruled out strange semantics.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/19/24 07:57, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>> 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>

Received on Monday, 19 February 2024 13:34:03 UTC