- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:55:15 -0500
- To: Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>, "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 1/23/24 05:26, Doerthe Arndt wrote: > Hi all, > > I am joining rather late to the discussion, so apologies if all I write has > already been said or my problem here is already solved (in the latter case I > am very thankful for your explanations :) ) > > So, to look to Enrico’s point from another direction, let’s assume that we > have RDF and we would like to simply add support for owl:sameAs (for whatever > reason). > > Now, we would normally have that from > > :s :p :o. > :o owl:sameAs :k. > > we could derive > > :s :p :k. > > But what happens if we have > > :t rdf:subject :s; > rdf:predicate :p; > rdf:object :o. > > and > > :o owl:sameAs :k. > > following the same logic as above, we would derive > > :t rdf:object :k. > > But with that derivation, we violate our wellformedness constraint which is a > purely syntactical constraint. So, here, we seem to have a problem because we > mix up syntax and semantics. Maybe your proposals already contained a > solution which I missed? How do we avoid such derivations? > > Kind regards, > Dörthe Not so. There is no notion of adding the triple back into the RDF graph. So there is no ill-formed RDF graph here. What implementations do internally is not affected. All that implementations are permitted to do is to reject ill-formed RDF graphs on input. What they do internally is not changed - an implementation that adds consequences to its internal data structures is on its own. peter
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2024 11:55:22 UTC