Re: Decision from the Semantics TF: liberal baseline

Yes, that's what I meant.


I think that the discussion is best formed around which entailements we want, 
and that the entailments in question all are related to whether the mere 
presence of triple terms in a graph creates entailments as if they were 
asserted triples in the graph.

Here are some of the potential entailments:

:a rdf:reifies <<( :b :c :d )>>
simple entails
:b :c :d .
I say no to this one.

:a rdf:reifies <<( :b :c :d )>>
RDF entails
:c rdf:type rdf:Property .
I say no to this one as well.

:a rdf:reifies <<( :b :c :d )>>
RDFS entails
:b rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
I say yes to this one, because everything is a resource so having an IRI in a 
triple term doesn't really add anything.

:a rdf:reifies <<( :b rdf:reifies :d )>>
RDFS entails
:d rdf:type rdfs:Proposition .
I say no to this one.

:a rdf:reifies <<( :b :c "hi"^^xsd:string )>> .
extended-RDFS entails
"hi"^^xsd:string rdf:type xsd:string .
I say yes to this one, because strings are always instances of xsd:string in 
RDFS so having a string in a triple term doesn't really add anything.

:a rdf:reifies <<( :b rdf:reifies <<( :e :f :g )>> )>> .
RDFS entails
<<( :e :f :g )>> rdf:type rdfs:Proposition .
I say yes to this one, again because triple terms are always instances of 
rdfs:Proposition in RDFS so having a triple terms inside a triple term doesn't 
really add anything.





peter


On 1/9/25 8:56 AM, Doerthe Arndt wrote:
> 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

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2025 14:31:30 UTC