Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

> On 7. Jan 2025, at 10:43, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> On 7 Jan 2025, at 00:06, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
>> However, looking at the RDFS entailment patterns in <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#patterns-of-rdfs-entailment-informative>, 
>> some of them seem rather verbose, like
>> 
>> rdfs4a 
>> xxx aaa yyy . 
>> ->
>> xxx rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
>> 
>> some seem useful, like 
>> 
>> rdfs11 
>> xxx rdfs:subClassOf yyy .
>> yyy rdfs:subClassOf zzz . 
>> ->
>> xxx rdfs:subClassOf zzz .
>> 
>> But they all seem evidently valid.
> 
>> The proposed reif axioms however aren’t, they can easily be broken. That rather speaks against them.
> 
> ???
> I assume that you refer to the reif entailment patterns (they are not axioms). 

Yes. Sorry, my bad.

> The purpose of entailment patterns (e.g., for rdfs:subclass, or rdf:reifies) is to provide an alternative way to define the semantics of the language, by showing explicitly all (and only) the valid entailments.
> Being an alternative way to define the semantics, they have to be shown to be sound and complete wrt the model theoretic semantics definitions, i.e., they have to reflect exactly the model theoretic semantics.
> You either accept both entailment patterns and model theoretic semantics, or none.

Okay, that way it makes sense. Also your answer to William. Thanks!

.t

> —e.