- 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
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