Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

On 8 Jan 2025, at 17:50, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think you need to be more precise in the changes and your judgments. IS(rdfs:Resource) = IR is only true in RDFS interpretations.  IS(rdf:Property) = IP is only true in RDF interpretations.
> 

Sure, that’s what I meant.
—e. 

> peter
> 
> 
> On 1/8/25 11:35 AM, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>> Option 1 (the current option) adds metamodelling inference only for asserted triples.:
>>        Option 1 (shallow metamodelling)
>>          * ⏩ |<[I+A](r), [I+A](rdf:Proposition)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type))|
>>                       if |r is a triple term and ∃ x,y . (<x,[I+A](r)> ∈
>>            IEXT(y)) ⋁ (<[I+A](r),x> ∈ IEXT(y))|
>>                       or if |∃ x . <x,[I+A](r)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:reifies))| ⏪️
>> Note that this is just wrong since in this case we have
>> [I+A](rdfs:Resource) ≠ IR
>> [I+A](rdfs:Property) ≠ IP
>>        Option 2 (true metamodelling)
>>          * ⏩ |<r, [I+A](rdf:Proposition)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type))|
>>                       if |r ∈ range(RE)| or
>>                       if |∃ x,y . RE(x,[I+A](rdf:reifies),r)=y| ⏪️
>>          * ⏩ |<r, [I+A](rdfs:Resource)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type))|
>>                       if |r ∈ range(RE)| or
>>                       if |∃ x,y,z . RE(x,z,r)=y| or
>>                       if |∃ x,y,z . RE(r,z,x)=y| ⏪️
>>          * ⏩ |<r, [I+A](rdfs:Property)> ∈ IEXT([I+A](rdf:type))|
>>                       if |∃ x,y,z . RE(x,r,z)=y| ⏪️
>> Option 2 adds new metamodelling conditions, which implies that
>> [I+A](rdfs:Resource) = IR
>> [I+A](rdfs:Property) = IP
>> as it should.
>> The entailment pattern for option 2 will have "if the triple structure appears in S”.
>> —e.
>>> On 8 Jan 2025, at 17:17, 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 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.
>>> 
>>> Another question is whether or not we want the proposition subject, predicate and object, but they could serve the purpose.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Dörthe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2025 16:54:14 UTC