opaque terms should entail non-opaque terms - was Re: RDF-star "baseline" with IRI opacity

As far as I can tell, this semantics has two flaws:
1/ annotations are for opaque triple terms
2/ opaque triple terms do not entail non-opaque triple terms.

What I think should be possible for users to be able to ask whether there is 
an annotation for the denotation of an IRI, not just about a particular IRI. 
That is
   _:b rdf:isAnnotationOf O( John married Suzy ) .
   _:b :source _:nyt .
   _:nyt :publication :NYT .
   _:nyt :date Tuesday .
   John owl:sameAs Jake .
where O indicates an opaque triple should entail
   _:b rdf:isAnnotationOf ( Jake married Suzy ) .
   _:b :source _:nyt .
   _:nyt :publication :NYT .

To make this example work I had to use an RDFS++ construct.  The same example 
works without this construct if the consequent uses John instead of Jake but 
then the point I am trying to make is rather obscure.  (Which is, in my 
opinion, a reason to not have opaque triple terms in RDF.)

peter


On 6/14/24 08:20, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Hi,
> after the discussions last week arguing the non-intuitiveness of fully opaque 
> triple terms as literals, and after the comments that opaque tripe terms 
> should have transparent bnodes, I have prepared a new version of the baseline 
> document, where opaque triple terms have opaque IRIs and transparent bnodes:
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline-with-IRI-opacity” 
> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline-with-IRI-opacity">
> Note that annotations are not anymore functional with opaque triple terms 
> anymore, since it would make little sense with transparent bnodes in opaque 
> triple terms. Still, as I already discussed privately with some of you, even 
> without functionality we should still be able to capture the LPG use cases.
> See you later,
> —e.

Received on Friday, 14 June 2024 14:54:33 UTC