W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > October 2020

Re: weakness of embedded triples

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:25:44 -0400
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>, public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-ID: <6c8edf55-6898-08b7-17ca-1fdbecc535db@gmail.com>

On 10/14/20 4:41 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> thanks a lot for these insightful remarks.
>
> While I consider some of the problems you raise to be features rather than
> bugs (see below), I think you still point out some weaknesses in the
> proposed semantics.
>
> On 14/10/2020 18:51, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>

[...]


> Each triple is, in effect, its own context.  So, in an RDFS version of RDF*,
>> even if :loisLane believes several triples that should imply another, they
>> generally don't.  For example:
>>
>> :loisLane :believes << :clarkKent rdf:type :man >> .
>> :loisLane :believes << :man rdfs:subClassOf :human >> .
>>
>> Does not imply
>>
>> :loisLane :believes << :clarkKent rdf:type :human >> .
>
> Yes, because, again, we don't want to bake into the semantics the assumption
> that :loislane knows the inference rules of RDFS.
>
> Furthermore, if you replace :believes by :disbelieves, your inference would
> clearly be incorrect.
>
>

Agreed, but that is not the point.  Creating an extension of RDF* where you
could do belief seems very tricky.  Contrast this with a named graph version,
where Lois's belief space can be a different RDF graph.  This graph could use
RDF semantics, RDFS semantics, SWRL semantics, or OWL semantics, whatever
seems best.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2020 21:26:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 14 October 2020 21:26:02 UTC