Re: summary un/asserted

On 10 Jul 2024, at 13:15, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
On 9. Jul 2024, at 20:25, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024, at 19:11, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de> wrote:

I am still trying to understand the problem or more precisely, why it would not be enough to have your two predicates rdf:reifies and rdf:instantiates (as :says vs. :saysAndAsserts from the meeting) and simply say that
:x rdf:instantiates << :s :p :o>>.
entails (in some rdf-star entailment)
:s :p :o.
I am not sure that this would be what I want, but that is how I understand your proposal?

This was exactly my point at our latest TF meeting. I still can’t understand why this wouldn’t be satisfactory.

Aha, so we are in violent agreement?

In the SemTF discussion last Friday I was understanding Dörthe’s ":says vs. :saysAndAsserts" as a reference to some domain ontology predicate ex:says. However, I seem to have misunderstood and she used those properties as synonyms for rdf12:reifies and rdf12:instantiates (the exact wording of which is of course not set in stone yet). In that case we do indeed seem to agree.

OK, good. At least now I understand, and it is easy to explain the concrete effect.
Another thing is whether there will be an agreement on this…

Still, there is another technical question.
In your view of the world, is the following a necessary constraint:
:x rdf:reifies << :s :p :o>>.
NEVER entails (in some rdf-star entailment)
:s :p :o.
In other words, is the following an inconsistent graph?
:x rdf:reifies << :s :p :o>>.
:s :p :o.
—e.