Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

On 09/01/2025 11:30, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2025, at 18:27, Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>> <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         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
>>>
>> I assume that what you really mean is
>>
>> { x | (x, [I+A](rdfs:Resource)) ∈ IEXT(rdf:type) } ≠ IR
>> { x | (x, [I+A](rdf:Property)) ∈ IEXT(rdf:type) } ≠ IP
>>
>> but even then, I'm very confused.
>
> I probably meant:
> given a RDFS graph g, there is a unique minimal rdfs-model I of g 
> (modulo isomorphism for bnodes interpretation), and in I the following 
> holds:
> ICEXT(rdfs:Resource) = IR
> ICEXT(rdf:Property) = IP
>
> Wouldn’t you agree?
Yes. The only reason I didn't use ICEXT (but instead "expanded" its 
definition) was because ICEXT is /only/ defined in RDFS semantics, and 
we were discussing both RDF- and RDFS-semantics...
> —e.