Re: RDF / RDFS semantics for the liberal baseline

Hi enrico, all,


I also add my opinion.

> Am 13.01.2025 um 17:30 schrieb Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>:
> 
> 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 .
> 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 .
> 
> 
> The question is what people want to do with rdfs:Proposition.
> Possibilities:
> 
> I want that triple terms are of type rdfs:Proposition.
> YES
> NO

YES, but please let’s try to find a better entailment pattern. I do not want to have  „if the triple structure appears in S“. Adding the derivation to RDFS could be a solution, but I hope we find something better.

> I want that objects of rdf:reifies triples at top level are of type rdfs:Proposition.
> YES
> NO


YES/NO -> it depends.
That is more complicated: I am extremely unhappy with the „if the triple structure appears in S“. As long as we do not have a better solution, I would want to limit the use of that kind of condition to the bare minimum, therefore I would prefer not to have this derivation. But in my opinion, we can only not have this derivation of we change the domain of RE (the interpretation function for triple terms) back to IR x IR x IR. I did not get Peter’s argument why that can’t be done or why that causes ugliness (maybe he can explain). So, if simple entailment stays as it is, my answer is „yes“, if we can change simple entailment, my answer is no. But my arguments are from a formalization point of view, so I can live with both, I just want consistency.


> I want that objects of rdf:reifies triples at any nested level are of type rdfs:Proposition.
> YES
> NO
> 

NO, rdf:reifies should just be a „normal“ property.


Kind regards,
Dörthe

> —e.
>