Re: RDF-star “baseline” document

As far as I can tell the base semantics here is fully opaque triples.

Is the well-formed semantics a separate semantics?

The statement entailment axiom appears to be ill-formed.  The axiom has access 
only to the semantics.  So it can only see elements of the extension of 
rdf:tokenOf as they exist in the semantics.  As s, p, and o work on triple 
terms, not literal values, they cannot be used in the axioms.  To make this 
work you have to add something to the definitional part of the semantics.

In the end, this proposal is very much like the CG result,  To see this look 
at the unstar section of the both documents, where in one there is rdf:tokenOf 
link to a triple of syntactic tokens and in the other there are several 
lexical links.  The differences amount to this proposal using RDF reification 
vocabulary and the CG result having transparent blank nodes.

peter


On 6/6/24 10:12, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> I do share these concerns, as well many of the concerns that Thomas
> expressed (the unasserted aside; I am not as worried about that).
> 
> I know that once one has grasped the distinction, the choice of opaque
> or transparent is "obvious"; but history has shown that this is not
> easy to grasp. It's not about the "quotes", it's about the distinction
> between tokens and interpretations. And not even the formal syntax (g)
> vs. interpretation/model (I), but about exposing it in the domain of
> discourse; for developers and users with a wide range of backgrounds,
> training and assumptions. In a way, I think this proposal is good in
> part *because* it can show how difficult that can become.
> 
> As Andy also replied, we did talk about there being a connection
> between the opaque and transparent triples. But I'm not sure this
> baseline proposal explains how to make the connection. And I agree,
> there should be one (perhaps even must be, to prevent users from
> accidentally painting their data into a corner).
> 
> Taking as much as I could into consideration, I've written an
> alternative proposal, attempting to simplify this by removing
> transparent triples (gasp!) and then betting on it being feasible to
> entail transparent statements from their tokens.
> 
> I just put it at [1], *far* too late for the call today. But based on
> where the discussion goes, it might be up for debate on tomorrow's
> SemTF telecon. I know e.g. Enrico won't like it -- I'm not even sure
> *I* do -- but if the opaque functional "triple token" point is deemed
> necessary, it may be better to root everything in that; *if* it can
> also be "peeked into".
> 
> (Its Achilles' heel is probably the notion of a "B-function" (from
> Dörthe's options) to go from a literal-like triple to its
> interpretation. It also adds a "hop" to get to the "real reifier",
> using a qualifiedBy relation. I do think there is a common prior
> pattern to that though, so, for better or worse, it may be more
> recognizable... It echoes what I've seen in Wikidata, as well as
> "option 2: sugar+" from the "seeking consensus" table [2]. There is
> also no apparent need for a naming syntax with this alternative (it is
> neutral to that).)
> 
> All the best,
> Niklas
> 
> [1]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Proposal:-Triple-Tokens-Entailing-Reified-Statements>
> [2]: <https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html>
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 2:13 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have three concerns with this as a baseline.
>>
>> First, it is complex, with two different kinds of triple terms.  I think that
>> the baseline should be a simple extension that meets the requirements of most
>> of the use cases.
>>
>> Second, opaque triple terms are completely opaque, with blank nodes treated
>> just like IRIs.  Although there is a use case that requires opaque blank nodes
>> I don't see how opaque blank nodes are suitable for use cases like annotations
>> or provenance.
>>
>> Third, there does not appear to be any connection between transparent and
>> opaque triple terms.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2024 17:01:14 UTC