Re: RDF / RDFS semantics for the liberal baseline

On 14/01/2025 15:59, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> I tend to agree with Peter’s argument.
> —e.

+1

> 
>> 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 17:05:33 UTC