Re: From syntactic to interpreted triple

On fredag 22 januari 2021 kl. 13:13:55 CET thomas lörtsch wrote:
> [...]
> > Given this understanding, you may indicate the cases in which you want to
> > use referential transparency on top of a referential opacity semantics by
> > using specific properties that you introduce for this purpose. For
> > instance, you may introduce a property denoted by the URI ex:statedBy and
> > define that referential transparency can be used for nested triples that
> > have this property in their predicate position. This way, related to your
> > example, if you have a nested triple
> > 
> > <<:cars :are :bad>> ex:statedBy :Alice
> > 
> > you can derive the following triple.
> > 
> > <<:automobiles :are :bad>> ex:statedBy :Alice
> > 
> > So, while the semantics of RDF* adopts referential opacity, you can build
> > on it and define cases in which you want to have referential
> > transparency.
>
> But doesn’t this mean that in every case that you want to comment on a
> triple with referential transparency you have to define a new property with
> those specific semantics?

I don't see why that would be necessary. Once I have introduced a property 
such as ex:statedBy (for which I have defined that referential-transparency 
inferences can be made for nested triples that have this property as their 
predicate), then I can use this property for any embedded triple.

> That would seem like an outrageous demand to me.
> 
> And even then: how would you define such a property? It probably should be a
> subproperty of the property that you intend to use.

No, I don't think so. However, I have a bit of trouble responding to this 
sentence because I am not certain what you mean by "the property that you 
intend to use."

From my reading of your initial example, you wanted the property ex:statedBy 
to have a meaning that allows for referential-transparency inferences. So, if 
you simply define it to have this meaning, then it is the property that was 
intended to be used, isn't it?

Best,
Olaf


> That seems to need a
> new property like
> 
>  rdf*:isSubpropertyWithOpaqueSemanticsOf
> 
> or even
> 
>  rdf*:isSubpropertyWithOpaqueSemanticsInDomainOf
>  rdf*:isSubpropertyWithOpaqueSemanticsInRangeOf
>  rdf*:isSubpropertyWithOpaqueSemanticsInDomainAndRangeOf
> 
> as different embedded triples in subject and object position might have
> different semantics. So you’d get three subproperties per any property from
> any established vocabulary, right? Maybe not *all* of them but certainly
> not a few in between.
> 
> If this is indeed your proposal then I think you’ll have to come up with
> something better. Or please explain what you meant instead.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> > Best,
> > Olaf
> > 
> > On torsdag 21 januari 2021 kl. 13:40:56 CET thomas lörtsch wrote:
> >> [I hope I’m using the right terminology in the right way. Advice is
> >> welcome.]
> >> 
> >> The proposed semantics defines that the embedded triple refers to a
> >> triple
> >> on the syntactic level, not in the realm of interpretation. In defense of
> >> this rather peculiar arrangement Pierre-Antoine and Dörthe argued that
> >> going from the syntactic to the interpreted triple is always possible
> >> whereas the other way round it is not: once a triple is part of the
> >> interpretation we can not know what its original syntactic structure was.
> >> That’s true (at least in any normal setup) but let's assume I’d like to
> >> annotate not the syntactic triple but the interpreted triple. What would
> >> I
> >> actually have to do to construct a reference to an interpreted triple
> >> from
> >> an RDF* embedded triple?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Lets for example assume someone published the triple
> >> 
> >>  :cars :are :bad .
> >> 
> >> As he published that statement on the semantic web we can assume that his
> >> intend was to refer not only to :cars but just as well to :automobiles,
> >> 
> >> :voitures etc. Now if we want to comment on that general interpretation
> >> :of
> >> 
> >> this statement, irrespective of the concrete vocabulary used,
> >> irrespective
> >> of any syntactic specifics, how would we do that? The proposed semantics
> >> of
> >> 
> >>  << :cars :are :bad >> :a :disputedClaim .
> >> 
> >> doesn’t cover this very common case as the embedded triple only refers to
> >> that very specific syntactic form. From this RDF* statement we couldn’t
> >> infer that
> >> 
> >>  << :automobiles :are :bad >> :a :disputedClaim .
> >> 
> >> even if we were using a reasonably complete mapping of car related
> >> vocabiularies. Adding all those derivable embedded triples to the
> >> database
> >> is not a viable option as it would increase operational costs enormously.
> >> We need a way to derive a reference to the interpreted triple from the
> >> syntactic triple that the RDF* embedded triple represents. But how?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thomas

Received on Friday, 22 January 2021 14:29:48 UTC