Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

Dear Dörthe,

On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 5:17 PM Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>
wrote:

> Dear Niklas,
>
>
> 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.)
>
>
>
> It is a little bit more complicated because of the nesting. We could have
>
> :a :b <<( :s :p  <<( :x :y :z )>> )>>.
>
> we would want to derive that
>
> :y a rdf:Property.
>

But if:

    :a :b <<( :s :p  <<( :x :y :z )>> )>> .

entails:

    <<( :s :p  <<( :x :y :z )>> )>> rdf:propositionSubject :s .
    <<( :s :p  <<( :x :y :z )>> )>> rdf:propositionPredicate :p .
    <<( :s :p  <<( :x :y :z )>> )>> rdf:propositionObject <<( :x :y :z )>> .

Then from:

    <<( :s :p  <<( :x :y :z )>> )>> rdf:propositionObject <<( :x :y :z )>> .

we get:

    <<( :x :y :z )>> rdf:propositionSubject :x .
    <<( :x :y :z )>> rdf:propositionPredicate :y .
    <<( :x :y :z )>> rdf:propositionObject :z .

And given the range of propositionPredicate, we get that :y a rdf:Property .


> But that could still be done with a detailed version of Enrico’s "triple
> structure appears in“ notation. We could still get your triples.
>
> Another problem I see with your approach here is that we depend on RDFS
> while the properties are already derived in RDF and I assume that we want
> to keep it that way.
>

This might warrant some more debate.


> Another question is whether or not we want the proposition subject,
> predicate and object, but they could serve the purpose.
>

To be transparent, I have my motivations [1]. ;)

All the best,
Niklas

[1]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49>



> Kind regards,
> Dörthe
>
>
>
>
>
>