- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:55:27 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Complete? For what? What happened to the simple semantics? peter On 1/8/25 11:45 AM, Franconi Enrico wrote: > This is my complete proposal: > > * ⏩ |<r, [I+A](rdfs: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| ⏪️ > > > if the triple structure appears in S then S RDF entails > */reif1/* sss aaa <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:type > rdfs:Proposition . > <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:type rdfs:Resource . > sss rdf:type rdfs:Resource . > aaa rdf:type rdfs:Property . > */reif2/* <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> aaa ooo <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:type > rdfs:Proposition . > <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:type rdfs:Resource . > ooo rdf:type rdfs:Resource . > aaa rdf:type rdfs:Property . > */reif3/* sss rdf:reifies ooo ooo rdf:type rdfs:Proposition . > > > —e. > > > >> On 8 Jan 2025, at 17:35, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> 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 16:55:32 UTC