Re: RDF / RDFS semantics for the liberal baseline

I tend to agree with Peter’s argument.
—e.

> On 14 Jan 2025, at 16:53, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/13/25 11:30 AM, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> [...]
> 
> >
> > The question is what people want to do with rdfs:Proposition.
> > Possibilities:
> >
> >  1. I want that triple terms are of type rdfs:Proposition.
> >      1. YES
> >      2. NO
> Yes
> 
> >  2. I want that objects of rdf:reifies triples at top level are of type
> >     rdfs:Proposition.
> >      1. YES
> >      2. NO
> Yes
> 
> >  3. I want that objects of rdf:reifies triples at any nested level are of type
> >     rdfs:Proposition.
> >      1. YES
> >      2. NO
> >
> No
> rdf:reifies is a predicate and shouldn't get some sort of super-range that operates even if the triple is not asserted.
> 
> >
> > —e.
> >
> peter
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2025 15:59:25 UTC