Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

> Am 08.01.2025 um 17:39 schrieb Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>:
> 
> Dear Dörthe,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 5:17 PM Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de <mailto: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 .


I see. Sorry for doubting your solution :)


Dörthe

>  
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>