On 7 Jan 2025, at 17:01, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote: - regarding the distinction between "if S contains" and "if the triple structure appears in S", I think I would prefer to keep "if S contains" for all entailment patterns. What happens in a triple term stays in a triple term. People may want to talk about non-sensical triples, and any inference transpiring from triple terms may make this inconsistent. This should not be the reason to not have metamodelling inference within nested triple terms. After all, we are here ONLY talking about what is a proposition, what is a class, what is a resource. By disallowing metamodelling inferences within nested triples, uris used within nested triples, for example, are not going to be of type rdf:resource; etc. It is impossible to have nonsensical in metamodelling inferences within nested triple terms; only the presence or not of inferred metamodelling statements. The discussion should be at this level: are you happy by not having these metamodelling inferences within nested triple terms? —e.
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2025 16:11:27 UTC