Re: RDF-star “baseline” document

More precisely, examples 3 and 4.
—e.

On 4 Jun 2024, at 14:23, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:


Hi Thomas,

On 4 Jun 2024, at 11:45, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:



On 4. Jun 2024, at 07:09, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

On 4 Jun 2024, at 02:10, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm pretty sure that this semantics does not support

O(:a :b _:c1) :e :f .

entailing

O(:a :b -:c2) :e :f .

or

O(:a :b :c) :e :f .

entailing

O(:a :b _:c) :e :f .

Where O is for opaque triple terms.

You’re right: opaque triple terms do not have the above entailments, by design. It has been this way since several months.

Opaque triple terms behave like literals.

This covers the case, in the well formed fragment, of distinct annotations to distinct triples in a graph: if the above entailments were valid, then the same annotation would hold for distinct triples.

Why again was that considered a problem? Because it would lead to many-to-many reifications, i.e. annotations on graphs or sets? And this solution settled the case for LPG-oriented applications which can use opaque triple terms to ensure that edge annotations can’t "morph into" graph annotations?

Please forgive the ignorant question but I’ve been pretty occupied with other stuff for the last few weeks and am trying to re-activate what I once kinda thought to know...

See example 3 in
<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-examples-of-profiles>
<rdf-star-wg.png>
RDF‐star examples of profiles<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-examples-of-profiles>
github.com<https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-examples-of-profiles>
Cheers
--e.


Bes.+


Cheers
—e.

On 6/3/24 17:29, Franconi Enrico wrote:
Hi all,
as promised, I’ve prepared a document defining the current status of RDF-star, according to what I understood from our latest chats.
It is mainly a merge of the two previous documents about the two profiles.
The idea is that RDF with simple interpretations has two triple terms (transparent and opaque) and unrestricted syntax for them. There is no other adde special vocabulary.
On the other hand, RDF with RDF interpretations introduces the special vocabulary for reification, restricts the syntax of triple terms as usual (the “well formed” fragment), and specifies the functionality of the annotation in the reification of opaque triple terms.
You may notice that I changed rdf:annotationOf with rdf:hasAnnotation, in order to allow for direct literal annotation to opaque triple terms - not orthodox but useful I guess.
Here it is:
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline" <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline">
Cheers
—e.