- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:31:44 -0500
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Cc: Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 1/10/25 9:47 AM, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > > >> On 9. Jan 2025, at 15:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 )>> >> 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. > > That [to] me stands in contradiction to the one before. Isn’t everything in predicate position an rdf:Property (or illegal)? Also, what’s the point in making such brittle distinctions when the result is not of any interest. > [...] Note that this is in RDFS semantics, where everything is a resource. You might want to add a stronger entailment, but this minimum appears to me to be a requirement of the RDF semantics. The point is that a triple term is not asserted and thus does not need to be a property. peter
Received on Friday, 10 January 2025 15:31:49 UTC