multisets everywhere

RDF semantics is based on sets and RDF-star builds on that. However RDF-star triple annotation has to deal with the practice of RDF, not its theoretical ideal. In RDF as practically employed multisets, although not the norm, can appear almost everywhere. A design that ignores them per default but requires rewriting data and queries when they appear will not fare well in practice. The problem is inherent in the verbosity of the quoted triple identifier: it favors a syntax that is in almost all cases at least risky, if not outright wrong. The shortcut syntax might provide a way out of this dilemma.

The following examples should illustrate that multisets have to be expected almost everywhere in RDF data. From now on I’m always assuming the standard use case where an actual assertion is annotated:

#0    :Bob :bought :Car .
     :RichardB :marriedTo :LizT .
     :Alice :plays :Guitar .

The CG report says that 'Alice said that Bob bought a car' should be modeled not as

#1    <<:Bob :bought :Car>> :said :Alice .

but as 

#2    [] :occurrenceOf <<:bob :bought :Car>> ;
        :said :Alice ;

because there might be other sources for the same statement. That’s always possible so it seems reasonable to always require the indirection of creating a proper occurrence identifier when annotating a statement with provenance.

Likewise it was recently discussed that marriages between Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor should not be modeled as 

#3    <<:RichardB :marriedTo :LizT>> :start 1966 .

but rather as

#4    [] :occurrenceOf <<:RichardB :marriedTo :LizT>> ;
        :start 1966 .   

beacuse we know of that second marriage.

But what if we didn’t? What if we had authored this in 1967, assuming that this marriage will last forever? Would we have chosen the more involved modelling style nonetheless? And if we did go with the succinct #3 version - very probably, at least according to current thinking I assume - will we later, after their second marriage, have to change that to #4 style? 

What about querying? Say we are not sure if some statement occurs only once or multiple times: will we have to query for both modelling styles? Probably.

While the first example could be categorized as describing a speech act and the second example might be considered instantiation there’s also the case of subclassing. For example we might want to describe that Alice happily plays guitar:

#5    <<:Alice :plays :Guitar>> :mood :Happy .

The other day however she plays guitar because she's sad:

#6    <<:Alice :plays :Guitar>> :mood :Gloomy .

"So which one is it?" the unexpecting data consumer might complain. It turns out that indeed we should have chosen the more involved style right away. 
And that is precisely my concern: the succinct modelling style as in #1, #3, #5 and #6 only works if we can be _sure_ that we are dealing with triples as types - not occurrences, not instances, not subtypes, not whatever other (not so) special cases there might exist. 

The succinct triple-as-type style only works for use cases that the proposed semantics was optimized for, when working on the very low levels of RDF machinery. In any other case the succinct style can be used first but might need to be changed later, and it requires queries to account for both modelling styles. Both prospects are bad enough to warrant a general rule that says: don’t use the succinct style, use the indirection via creating a statement identifier if you are not really sure that your use case is Explainable AI, versioning or similiarily close to the metal.

In my understanding the problem stems from the very core of RDF-star’s design: RDF-star quoted triples are verbose in that they quote in full what they identify. That leads to moral hazard: it’s all too easy to take the shortest path and use the type as an identifier where one should mint a proper identifier first. The proposed semantics take advantage of that verbosity and put it to good use of it for those special use cases that require a carbon copy of their subject. But it is not well suited for annotations that influene the meaning of the annotated triple. Maybe it helps to think about the problem this way: property graph style modelling allows to keep the simple triple and yet enrich it with additional detail. But one must admit that the simple triple annotated in two different ways is then not the same triple anymore. 

I was all along (summer of 2020 IIRC) arguing for proper statement identifiers like RDF/XML provides them and I still think they are the right solution for mainstream use cases as they are much closer to the reality of RDF data and therefore better positioned to capture deviations from the abstract RDF core. Maybe there is a middle ground in the shortcut syntax which could be defined as expanding to identifiers by default - e.g.:

   :Alice :plays :Guitar {| :mood :Happy |}
   :Alice :plays :Guitar {| :mood :Moody |}

expanding to

   :Alice :plays :Guitar .
   [] :occurrenceOf <<:Alice :plays :Guitar>> ;
      :mood :Happy.
   [] :occurrenceOf <<:Alice :plays :Guitar>> ;
      :mood :Moody .

This is guaranteed to be correct for single _and_ multiple occurrences alike, it is easy to author per the shorthand syntax and it is unambiguous to query.
All more involved use cases - explainable AI, unasserted assertions etc - work as before, as intended, using the quoted triple syntax.
I’d very much favor that default expansion to use a transparency enabling version of :occurrenceOf in which case the shorthand syntax would really be the syntactic sugar for RDF stanard reification that RDF-star was - and, I guess, outside these specialist circles still is - expected to be. That wouldn’t hurt the specialist use cases in any way.


P.S. w.r.t. "a can of worms": Knowledge representation is indeed a can of worms, and always has been, at least since the old greeks. Statement annotation in RDF is a topic well known to be situated right in the heart of the worm hole. There’s not simple genius way around that.

Received on Monday, 20 December 2021 00:32:20 UTC