Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

On 08/01/2025 14:04, Doerthe Arndt wrote:
> Dear Pierre-Antoine,
>
> Just a short answer for the first because I think my point did not get 
> through:
>
>> Am 08.01.2025 um 11:42 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>> <pierre-antoine@w3.org>:
>>
>> Dear Dörthe, Enrico,
>>
>> On 07/01/2025 18:10, Doerthe Arndt wrote:
>>> Dear Pierre-Antoine,
>>>
>>>> Am 07.01.2025 um 17:01 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>>>> <pierre-antoine@w3.org>:
>>>>
>>>> My 2 ¢ about 
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22#rdf-semantics
>>>>
>>>> - for the sake of homogeneity, I would keep only reif1 and reif2 in 
>>>> RDF Semantics,
>>>>   and push reif3 in RDFS Sedmantics (which would simply mean to add 
>>>> the axiomatic triple rdf:reifies rdfs:range rdf:Proposition . This 
>>>> is for the sake of regularity. I don't think that RDF semantics has 
>>>> any "range-like" entailment for the moment.
>>>
>>> I personally agree with you, but where to put that rule als depends 
>>> on what we want in general. There is the possibility to make 
>>> rdf:reifies  some kind of „special“ predicate for which we derive 
>>> that the subject is always a rdf:Proposition even when occurring 
>>> nested. I  really do not want to have something like that for all 
>>> domain declarations. So, if we want to make that the subject of 
>>> rdf:reifies is always a rdf:Proposition regardless of it occurring 
>>> nested or not, then it should be done like that. Whether we want 
>>> that is of course a different question.
>>
>> Agreed. I should have been clearer: in my opinion, the condition on 
>> RDF-interpretation should rather be
>>
>> ⏩ |<x, [I+A](rdf:Proposition)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type))|
>>           if |x ∈ dom(RE)| ⏪️
>>
>> without the additonal  "or if |∃ y . <y,x> ∈ 
>> IEXT([I+A](rdf:reifies))|", and therefore reif3 would be moot.
>> Instead, I would add the latter condition in RDFS as the axiomatic 
>> triple 'rdf:reifies rdfs:range rdf:Proposition', which would have the 
>> same consequence (in RDFS).
>>
>> But I will not die on that hill...
>>
>
> I understood, but my point was that
>
> rdf:reifies rdfs:range rdf:Proposition
>
> would not do the same because we would NOT get from
>
> rdf:reifies rdfs:range rdf:Proposition
> :a :b <<( _:r rdf:reifies _:p )>>.
>
> that
>
> _:p a rdf:Proposition.
I missed that part indeed, sorry.
>
> and the purpose of the rule as it is is to make this derivation happen 
> while not supporting that for example
>
> :know rdfs:range :Person.
> :a :b <<( :bob :knows :pasta )>>.
>
> yields
>
> :pasta a :Person.
>
> This would make rdf:reifies a special predicate with some kind of 
> „super range“  which even works on nested triples. I am really opposed 
> to making all ranges „super ranges“ by default. I am also not 
> convinced we need it in this case, but maybe we do?
I certainly don't! :) and I don't think I want it for rdf:reifies either.

As a matter of fact, while the reif3 entailment pattern does provide 
this special case for rdf:refies, I don't think that the semantic 
condition on RDF interpretation does!... It says

|<x, [I+A](rdf:Proposition)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type))|
           if |∃ y . <y,x> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:reifies))|

and IEXT([I+A](rdf:reifies)) only covers /asserted/ triples with the 
rdf:reifies predicate.

>
> Kind regards,
> Dörthe