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

Re: owl:sameAs/referential opacity Re: Can RDFstar be defined as only syntactic sugar on top of RDF (Re: weakness of embedded triples)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 10:48:20 -0400
To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-ID: <7df1f340-90c8-b49f-778d-537df4d545d7@gmail.com>
It is entirely possible that RDF* could just use RDF(S) semantics for embedded
triples.  If RDF* is simply a shorthand for existing RDF(S) idioms then the
semantics of embedded triples can just fall out of the expansion of the RDF*

The question is whether RDF* can be such a shorthand.  This depends on what
the desired meaning of RDF* constructs is.

RDF semantics is quite flexible with respect to reified statements and there
are several ways to map RDF* embedded triples into reified statements.  Some
ways achieve a form of referential transparency and other achieve a form of
referential opacity.  For example, if an embedded triple is mapped into a
blank-node reified statement then the semantics of embedded triples is quite
transparent.  On the other hand, if an embedded triple is mapped into a
reified statement using a fresh IRI then the semantics of embedded triples is
extremely opaque.  In the middle, an embedded triple could be mapping into a
reified statement using an IRI that is based on the syntax of the embedded
triple.  The semantics of embedded triples then depend on the details of this


On 10/29/20 5:07 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> On 29/10/2020 01:14, thomas lörtsch wrote:
>>> On 28. Oct 2020, at 19:31, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>>> (...)
>>> RDF(S) semantics makes no distinction between "stated triples" and "inferred triples". So unless we change the semantics of RDF (!),
>> !!
> Yes, I wrote that, and you seem to imply that I am contradicting myself,
> but I don't think I am ;-)
> RDF(S) semantics knows nothing about "embedded triples", which are
> neither "stated" (I should probably have written "asserted") nor
> "inferred". So it is up to us to decide how this new kind of triples
> should be handled. This is what this whole discussion is about.
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2020 14:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 29 October 2020 14:48:38 UTC