Re: RDF / RDFS semantics for the liberal baseline

The RDF(S) entailment patterns have ended up being designed to be implemented 
in a forward-chaining methodology that ends up with the instantiation 
relationship from simple entailment and are not minimal.   For example, RDFS 
has the following valid entailment rule:

for any graph and any IRI aaa, the following triple is entailed
   aaa rdf:type rdfs:Resource

So it is perilous to argue for the minimality of the current RDF(S) entailment 
rules and axioms.


peter




On 1/13/25 11:30 AM, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Let’s continue the discussion about the RDF / RDFS semantics for the liberal 
> baseline.
> After the finalization of the liberal baseline simple semantics, it is 
> necessarily the case that the RDF / RDFS semantics have to be at least as follows.
> 
> 
>     RDF SEMANTICS
> 
> RDF interpretations add the following new IRI with the namespace prefix rdf: | 
> rdf:reifies|.
> 
> The rdfD2 RDF entailment pattern is replaced by the following entailment 
> pattern, so to have a sound and complete set of metamodelling RDF entailment 
> patterns: ⏪
> 
>  if the triple structure appears in S  then S RDF entails
> */rdfD2-ts/*  sss aaa ooo  aaa rdf:type rdf:Property .

I don't think that completeness should be mentioned here.

I'm not convinced that this is a desirable rule.


>     RDFS SEMANTICS
> 
> The rdfs4a and rdfs4b RDFS entailment patterns are replaced by the following 
> entailment patterns:
> 
>  if the triple structure appears in S  then S RDFS entails
> */rdfs4a-ts/*  sss aaa ooo  sss rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
> */rdfs4b-ts/*  sss aaa ooo  ooo rdf:type rdfs:Resource .


These are specializations of the entailment rule that I mentioned at the 
beginning of this message.

peter

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2025 15:52:24 UTC