- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 19:02:47 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <75b236ce-6d1d-cd47-ead5-27f7a9692b1c@ercim.eu>
I forgot to put the link to the preview, for those not quite familiar with our github: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/127.html#rdf-star-semantics On 05/03/2021 19:00, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just pushed a pull-request adapting the semantics: > > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/127 > > I believe it has some advantages over the current version: > > * it does not rely anymore on "hidden" predicates (see issue #101 > <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/101>) > * it does not have the "merging" issue warned about in ยง6.3.1 > <https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/2021-02-18.html#combining-rdf-star-graphs> > * I think that it allows us to align SPARQL query semantics with > simple entailment (as newly defined) > * I think that it allows the Interpolation Lemma > <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#dfn-interpolation> to extend to > RDF-star > > (I didn't formally prove the last two items, hence "I think"...) > > The trick is that we do not map anymore RDF-star graphs to a single, > semantically equivalent RDF graph. > Instead, we map it to a pair of RDF graphs, which can be thought of as > a "lower and upper bound" of the RDF-star graph, in terms of > entailment. The semantics of the RDF-star graph is defined through the > semantics of its "bounds", reusing RDF semantics as is (as we > currently do). > > In this new semantics, a strict RDF-star graph (i.e. one that contains > embedded triples) has no exactly equivalent RDF graph, so it still can > not be conveyed exactly using RDF syntaxes (but we do not rely anymore > on hidden predicates for that). However, either of the two "bounds" > can be used to approximate the RDF-star graph in legacy RDF. The > "lower bound" will produce correct but incomplete inferences. The > "upper bound" will produce complete inferences, with a few spurious > (but generally harmless) ones. > > I am curious to get some feedback on this. > >
Received on Friday, 5 March 2021 18:02:52 UTC