- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:29:21 -0400
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>, public-rdf-star@w3.org
I'm still missing desiderata and motivations for RDF* beyond "fewer triples". Without this there isn't going to be a way to approve a semantics for RDF*. (It is possible to disapprove a semantics without a desiderata, but not possible to approve it.) peter On 10/27/20 6:17 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > Peter, > > On 27/10/2020 20:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> [Back to the original topic of this thread.] >> >> >> I was looking at the semantics of RDF* and I think I have discovered further >> weakness of embedded triples. In the semantics for RDF* there is a special >> mechanism to allow: >> >> Mary believes << John loves _:a >> >> >> to RDF*-entail >> >> Mary believes << John loves _:b >> >> >> >> But this mechanism is very weak. As far as I can tell >> >> Mary believes << John loves _:a >> >> >> does not RDF*-entail >> >> Mary believes << John loves _:c >> >> >> Mary believes << John loves _:b >> >> >> >> nor does >> >> >> Mary believes << John loves Susan >> >> >> RDF*-entail >> >> Mary believes << John loves _:a >> >> >> >> Both of these non-entailments seem to me to be significant problems with RDF*. > You are right, these entailments do not hold under the current > semantics, and I agree that this is a serious problem. > > Actually, your initial questions in this thread made use realize these > problems -- thanks for that ;-) -- and we have started working on a > revised semantics which is currently in a pull request, and that we > intend to merge soon. In the meantime, the PR is here: > > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/19 > > best > >> >> peter >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2020 18:29:35 UTC