Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

But these qualified equalities are true in RDF 1.1 and are unaffected by the 
presence of triple terms, as far as I can tell.

What you don't get is that predicates of triple terms are necessarily properties.

peter


On 1/8/25 11:54 AM, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> 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 17:03:21 UTC