Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

Hi all,

I am not sure to which message I should answer, so I try to go through the different points:

- "if the triple structure appears in S“: I fully agree with Peter that "if the triple structure appears in S“  can not be put into the spec without further formalization, I still hope to get completely rid of it. If it keeps being vague, there is no point in having entailment patterns in the first place. 

- better way to get the effect of rdfs:Proposition: I am not sure whether I fully understand Peter, but I would read this as defining the mapping RE: IR x IP x IR -> TP, where TP is our set of propositions (subset of IR), then on the model theory, we would say: 

x is in TP if and only if <x, I(rdf:Proposition)> is in IEXT(I(rdf:type))

Peter, was that what you meant? (The yellow comes from copy-paste, please ignore)

- super range of rdf:reifies: I think I already expressed that I am against that as well,

- metamodelling as (quote below)
> 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.

I am strongly against that. What if we have, for example: 

:x rdf:reifies <<(:c rdfs:subclass :d)>>;
 a :Lie.

I could come up with stronger examples, but I am also against that.

- Literals: we should also modify rdfD1 

- "Importance of metamodelling apparatus discussed“:  we need to have the entailment patterns (these have been in the spec and should remain there) and these need to be correct, so we have to discuss them at some point. In my opinion, there are also very helpful to see what the semantic definitions mean.


Kind regards, 
Dörthe