- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 12:05:40 -0500
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
But there isn't RDF/RDFS semantics. There is RDF semantics and RDFS semantics. (And datatype semantics but I don't think that that matters much here.) What goes where? peter On 1/8/25 11:56 AM, Franconi Enrico wrote: > > >> 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 17:05:46 UTC