- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 16:56:41 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> On 8 Jan 2025, at 17:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > Complete? For what? What happened to the simple semantics? I mean wrt the part on metamodelling in RDF/RDFS. —e. > > 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 16:56:47 UTC