Re: A few thoughts on RDF-star, Reification, and Labeled Property Graphs

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Apr/0019.html

904 QS- QP- QO- XI- XD .
910 QSA QPA QOA XIA XD .
920 XIA QSQ QSA XIB XD .
928 XIA QSQ QPA --- XD .
930 XIA QPQ QPA XIC XD .
939 XIA QPQ QPB --- XD .
940 XIA QOQ QOA XID XD .
951 XIA QPA QBE --- XD .
952 XIA QPQ QBE --- XD .
953 XIA QPE QOE --- XD .
955 QBE QPE QOE --- XD .
967 XIC QPE QOE XIE XD .

904 sets SPOID. XI=rdf:ID (new reifier). XD=named-graph/dataset (default).
XIA is a reifier of (QSA,QPA,QOA). XIA entails triples from 920,930,940 but
not their tokens XIB,XIC,XID. Other XI* reifying statements are entailed
but not restated in the table. 928 & 939 are WFF by AAA, which serve as
counter-examples to 95*. (QPE,QOE) is an edge-property/property-set.
(XIA,QPA) in 951 does not distinguish between 920v928. (XIA,QPQ) in 952
does not distinguish between 930v939. 953 is Example B (see link). 955
fails LPG-interop for EP/PS. 967 corrects LPG-interop for EP/PS. 953 & 967
are each a statement and both about statement 910. Call XIE a
3rd-reifier+12-statements. Enhance RDF/XML with rdf:ID2='XIC' &
rdf:ID3='XIE' productions to entail:
XIC rdf:type rdf:Statement .
XIC rdf:subject XIA .
XIC rdf:predicate rdf:predicate .
XIC rdf:object QPA .
XIE rdf:type rdf:Statement .
XIE rdf:subject XIC .
XIE rdf:predicate QPE .
XIE rdf:object QOE .

XIC does not need bnode-ns. Counter-examples approximate an argument about
how to read translations/rewrites of EP/PS. 953 ought to be typically
sufficient when taken with additional rules in an application & it reduces
triple count. But there are no operators like implication, negation, nor
containment through RDFMT. XIA does not preclude access to any of its
linked components. LPG seems to read EP/PS as (~QSA&~QOA)->QPA , which is
almost QSA xor QPA xor QOA. But this cannot mean "about QPA" like QP
transposed with QS in XD. This must mean QPA within a context of 910->XIA,
and hence named-graph (XD*) proposals. A distribution law translates the
usage as (~XIA\QSA&~XIA\QOA)->XIA\QPA. Still, RDF does not have a procedure
which copies nor relates the infix containment symbol \ of the
concatenation XIA\QPA to components XIA,QPA (unless by xml:base). 928 & 939
are unlikely to be practical interlocutions, but do show that 951 & 952
cannot translate pairs into triple-queries without assuming a cardinality
operator about QO of XIA. RDFMT by AAA does not make that restriction, but
OWL could raise inconsistency. 953 reads XIA as possibly inheriting from
how QSA or QOA are used in 910. 967 reads XIC as not making any assertion
about how QSA or QOA are used in XIA, but only asserts how QPA is used in
XIA. XIE equals constant accessor parameters to how a component is used in
910. Therefore rdf:ID2 & rdf:ID3 productions are a general translation for
EP/PS, when decisions about reductions of total context are unclear. It
ought to have an implementation effort similar to that of rdf:ID. As an
objection, it could be said that, like rdf:List, rdf:ID2 & rdf:ID3 lead to
unwanted verbosity.

Why does RDFMT say "from IP to the powerset of IRxIR" instead of just "from
IP to IRxIR" [pairs of cartesian product]?