Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

Hi all,

On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 4:36 PM Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>
wrote:

>
>
> 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>
> <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>
> On 8 Jan 2025, at 15:30, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
> <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?
>

I think that it should be derived. And I agree that the triple constituents
are resources (due to transparency).

I believe the following rule does that (given the existing RDF 1.1
entailment):

If S contains:

    sss aaa <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> .

or S contains (in symmetric RDF):

    <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> aaa ooo .

then S RDF(1.2)-entails (in symmetric RDF):

    <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:type rdf:Proposition .
    <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:propositionSubject xxx .
    <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:propositionPredicate yyy .
    <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:propositionObject zzz .

Then define:

    rdf:propositionPredicate rdfs:range rdf:Property .

To make yyy a property. (Which I think makes sense, even though weird
triple terms misusing e.g. classes as properties would have weird
consequences.)

Best regards,
Niklas



Dörthe
>
>   pa
>
> —e.
>
>
>
>