Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

Dear Enrico,

> Am 08.01.2025 um 17:45 schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>:
> 
> 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.
> 
First remarks: 
 
General:
- Niklas made an interesting point: If you  derive from 
> sss aaa <<(xxx yyy zzz)>>

that
xxx a rdfs:Resource. and zzz a rdfs:Resource. 
then we do not need the  „if the triple structure appears in S“ for rdf:Resource and can stick to „if S contains“. Problem keeps being rdf entailment and the property. 


RDF:
- I guess aaa in reif1 and reif2 should be yyy?

RDFS:
- we do not need  
> <<(xxx yyy zzz)>> rdf:type rdfs:Resource . 
in reif1 and reif 2 because we get that with the existing rules from RDFS.
We do need 
xxx a rdfs:Resource.
and
yyy a rdfs:Resource.  
instead.


Kind regards,
Dörthe


> 
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>