Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

> Am 08.01.2025 um 14:11 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>:
> 
> 
> 
> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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.
> 

Interesting. You are right. That is a good argument to drop the „super-range“ :)  (but let’s see what other say)
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Dörthe