On 08/01/2025 15:41, Franconi Enrico wrote: > > >> On 8 Jan 2025, at 15:36, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: >> >>> On 8 Jan 2025, at 15:30, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: >>> >>> I understand that the gist of this thread is that subjects, >>> predicates, objects in a triple term (at any level of nesting) have >>> the same denotation — namely the value of [I+A](.) — as if they were >>> appearing as subjects, predicates, objects in top-level asserted >>> triples, but nothing else; this is “transparency”. Yep, that's exactly how I see it. >>> If those subjects, predicates, objects are mentioned ONLY within >>> triple terms, then they will not have any inferred property at all >>> (including metamodelling properties). >>> The only inferred properties that those subjects, predicates, >>> objects in a triple term (at any level of nesting) may have, come >>> from other asserted top-level triples mentioning them. This is where I was wrong and where Dörthe corrected me. >> >> Still, I feel uncomfortable with the fact that an IRI in subject or >> object position of a triple term is NOT of type rdfs:resource, and >> that and IRI in property position of a triple term is NOT of type >> rdfs: property. >> But I guess we have to live with that. > > But semantically they ARE resources and properties, so we should find > a way to fix it, I guess… I agree that some of the entailment patterns need to be adapted, see the last part of my earlier response <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jan/0023.html>. pa > —e.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2025 15:07:41 UTC