Re: New PR: yet another refactoring of the semantics

Well there is a decided difference in philosophy.  My proposal was
designed with the idea of having RDF* embedded triples being just a
shorthand for RDF reification, both syntactically and semantically.

This drives the only significant differences in the proposals.
1/ Using the unstar: vocabulary.
2/ Meddling with any use of the unstar: vocabulary in the RDF* graph. 
(By the way, it would be useful to provide the rationale for this
meddling.)

The philosophy in the PR then needs to show the semantic properties of
the proposal and how SPARQL works on the proposal whereas in my
proposal there is no need to show any semantic correspondences.


The proposal uses all-new local vocabulary for encoding embedded
triples.  I don't see any reason to not use unstar:subject, etc.  I
also don't see any reason to use abbreviations, e.g., sString instead
of subjectLexical

There might be a bug in the proposal.  It appears that the IRI x and
the string <x> are both mapped by L to "<x>"^^xsd:string.  I believe
that this has consequences.  My proposal requires 

peter





On Wed, 2021-04-28 at 22:44 +0200, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> recently I was increasingly bothered with some aspects of the RDF-
> star 
> semantics:
> 
> * the use of hidden IRIs is clearly not ideal, all the more that
> "they 
> can not hide from SPARQL"
> (https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/101)
> 
> * the SPARQL-star execution semantics was not aligned with the MT
> semantics
> 
> This PR is an attempt to solve these two problems:
> 
>      https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/162
> 
> which I propose we discuss during our next call.
> 
> The main change with the previous version, apart from not using
> hidden 
> IRIs, is that unstar(G) is no longer equivalent to G (but they are 
> equisatisfiable).
> 
> Working on this PR, I realize that I was actually coming back (or
> very 
> close) to a solution proposed by Peter Patel-Schneider quite some
> time ago
> 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2020Nov/0044.html
> 
> Peter, I guess I owe you an apology for not seeing the value in this 
> proposal earlier!...
> 
>    best
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2021 13:53:18 UTC