– DRAFT –
RDF-star Semantics TF

discussion on open issues and PRs of RDF Semantics

<niklasl> IPR(I) = { RE(x, y, z) | x ∈ IR, y ∈ IP, z ∈ IR } and F(I) = { RE(x, y, z)｜<x, z> ∈ IEXT(y) }

<niklasl> Aren't irrational numbers in the set of literal values?

<niklasl> Is the fact that a specific proposition is of rdf:type rdfs:Proposition in the set of facts?

<niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91/files

<gb> Pull Request 91 A formal background to unify triples and triple terms (by franconi) [spec:substantive]

<niklasl> w3c/rdf-semantics#85

<gb> CLOSED Issue 85 remove informative section about reification, collections, and containers from Semantics (by pfps) [spec:editorial]

<enrico> FEXT(G, I, A) = { RE( [I+A](s), I(p), [I+A](o) )｜s p o. is in G };

<TallTed> doerthe — in https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91/files/50cdc1d50e1aad43d7ba168a3036188049aa5402..a3e8167baa5f9340f114bb9bcb875bfd89d07713 , I think there's some broken language.

<TallTed> Possibly more easily visible by searching for "Given a blank node mapping A" in the preview, https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/franconi/rdf-semantics-fork-enrico/pull/91.html

<niklasl> @enrico see https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91/files#r1995851932

<enrico> Conclusions: (1) we had a long discussion on PR#91, for which we have now a better formulation - doerthe will give her final approval, and (2) we had a long discussion on the well-foundedness of the current definition of RE (total injective mapping) - doerthe will try to find if there is any actual problem.

<gb> Issue 91 not found

<TallTed> G

<TallTed> Given a blank node mapping A, the set of all facts asserted by a graph G in an interpretation I is FEXT(G, I, A) = { < [I+A](s), I(p), [I+A](o) >£¸s p o. is in G }. We then observe that given a blank node mapping, the asserted facts of a graph with respect to an interpretation may not necessarily be among the facts of the interpretation.