Re: assertions on facts

The formal meaning of rdf:reifies is already in Semantics, at least so far as 
RDF(S) is concerned.

I did sketch a slightly different semantics for triple terms, but in that 
message I also stated that the current version of Semantics provides an 
adequate basis for triple terms and propositions already.

peter


On 8/28/25 11:55 AM, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> Peter,
> 
>> On 28. Aug 2025, at 16:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Semantics supports triple terms through a new component (IT) of simple interpretations that maps triple terms to their extension.  It also defines the notion of a propsition and includes an RDFS semantic condition for rdfs:Proposition.  In my opinion that's sufficient so far as the semantics is concerned.
>>
>> Semantics goes on to call out rdf:reifies as a member of the RDF vocabulary, and provides three axioms.  In my opinion that's sufficient so far as the semantics is concerned.  Similar members of the RDF(S) vocabulary, like rdf:first, have the same treatement in Semantics.
>>
>> So in my opinion no further additions to Semantics are needed, either to provide more formal semantics for reification or to further describe reification.  In my opinion, Semantics is supposed to be about defining the semantics of RDF(S).  (Moving the section on the intended meaning of old-style reification to Schema was an improvement for Semantics, as far as I am concerned.)
>>
>> Describing the intended meaning of rdf:reifies (or rdf:first) is a task for a different document in my opinion, preferably Schema but maybe Concepts.
> 
> how would a formal description of the meaning of rdf:reifies in model-theoretic terms (you provided a sketch, linked in your original message below) fit into any other document than RDF Semantics? And how can the meaning of a construct better be defined than with such a model-theoretic definition?
> 
> I’m still not convinced that the current definition via prose and examples and a planned note provides enough precision. It has been argued that more precision might be dangerous, but those dangers have only vaguely been eluded to (modal logic, complexity, etc). The WG could at least be explicit about the relinquishment of a model-theoretic semantics of rdf:reifies, and provide a description of those percieved dangers - for the benefit of further discussion during the CR phase (and maybe beyond).
> 
> Thomas
>

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2025 16:00:09 UTC