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

Peter,
your example does not work with owl:sameAs, because the interpretations of :jake and :married within the opaque triple term use a different interpretation function from the one used for the same IRIs outside the opaque triple term.
The same example does NOT work without owl:sameAs and with John instead of Jake, for the same reason as above.
—e.

> On 14 Jun 2024, at 16:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 Sunday, 16 June 2024 12:15:55 UTC