Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

On 09/01/2025 11:47, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Just to open a novel can of worms:
> there is a bunch of metamodelling semantic conditions in RDFS which 
> currently do apply only at top level, and we have to decide whether to 
> generalize to triple terms at arbitrary nesting.
>
> For example:
>
> :a :b <<(:c rdf:type :d)>>.
>
>     should or should not RDFS-entail
>
> :d rdf:type rdfs:Class.
>
> :a :b <<(:c rdfs:subclass :d)>>.
>
>     should or should not RDFS-entail
>
> :c rdf:type rdfs:Class.
> :d rdf:type rdfs:Class.
Unless I'm missing something, with the current semantics conditions, 
those implications do not hold.

And personally, I really (really!) don't think they should.

>
> etc.
>
> Discussion open.
> —e.