Re: New proposal for RDF* Semantics

Please could you clarify with an example:

"For each embedded triple (s, p, o)"

and

"""
An RDF* triple used as the subject or object of another RDF* triple is 
called an embedded triple.
"""

<<:s :p :o>> :q1 :r1 .
<<:s :p :o>> :q2 :r2 .

and

<<:s :p :o>> :q1 :r1 ; :q2 :r2 .

i.e. <<:s :p :o>> used twice as the subject even if via other turtle 
syntactic sugar.

(this is to tease out what is meant by "RDF* syntactic sugar" when it is 
not about (concrete) syntax, but is really an abstract model 'syntax' 
morphism).

     Andy

On 07/01/2021 21:35, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was hoping to send this earlier so that we could discuss this during 
> our next call, but given the short delay, it will have to wait for a 
> later call.
> 
> However, I just pushed a PR which contains a new version of the "RDF* 
> Semantics" section This is the result of lengthy discussions with Olaf 
> and Doerthe (huge thanks to them), as well as discussions on the mailing 
> list and valuable feedback from Peter and Antoine in particular.
> 
>      https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/81
> 
> It follows the idea of making RDF* syntactic sugar on top of RDF (cf 
> issue 37), at least at the abstract syntax level. Rather than 
> reinventing a semantics from the ground up, RDF* semantics is now 
> defined as a semantic extension (a.k.a. entailment regime) of RDF 
> (similarly to RDFS or OWL).
> 
> Yet, it aims to avoid the pitfalls of a full-fledged syntactic sugar 
> approach. More precisely: it tries to avoid users from describing 
> ill-formed or incomplete RDF* triples using plain-RDF syntaxes.
> 
> Any feedback welcome.
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 January 2021 00:34:32 UTC