Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

> Am 08.01.2025 um 16:07 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>:
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/01/2025 15:41, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 8 Jan 2025, at 15:36, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> <mailto:franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 8 Jan 2025, at 15:30, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> <mailto: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>.
> 

I agree with that and even volunteer to look into the entailment rules and give it a first try, if we agree on what we want. To me, it is (among other things) not clear yet, what we want to happen with the literals, do we want what  Pierre-Antoine said earlier:

  :s :p << :t :q "foo"^^xsd:string >>.

entails

  :s :p << :t :q _:b >>.
  _:b a xsd:string.

or should that not be derived?

Dörthe
>   pa
> 
>> —e.