Add definitions required for triple terms

[domel]

---

Preview | Diff

[pfps]

This PR seems to be running somewhat in advance of WG decisions?

[gkellogg]

This PR seems to be running somewhat in advance of WG decisions?

It is a Draft, so could just be anticipating that this will be adopted, but I agree that it may still be premature, as semantics could go in a different direction.

[domel]

Yes, this is a draft. I've only added one class. Properties are waiting to see how the discussion goes.

[niklasl]

It sounds good to update this PR to track where we're at. How about re-titling it to "Add definitions required for triple terms"?

I think defining rdf:reifies makes sense at this point. And its range rdf:Proposition (or rdfs:Proposition), which we're converging upon as the class of resources that triple terms denote. It's not finalized, but the more concrete, the easier to judge its sensibility.

In Turtle, I'm thinking:

rdf:reifies a rdf:Property ;
    rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource ;
    rdfs:range rdf:Proposition ;
    rdfs:label "reifies"@en ;
    rdfs:comment "The abstract proposition of a more concrete circumstance."@en .

rdf:Proposition a rdfs:Class ;
    rdfs:label "proposition"@en ;
    rdfs:comment "An atomic, logical, abstract proposition."@en .

(See also w3c/rdf-concepts#115 and w3c/rdf-semantics#49 for additional properties relating a proposition to its constituents (in "classicized" and and symmetric RDF respectively). They may end up being defined elsewhere, so I don't think we can add those in this PR. Note that these referenced issues also need updates to reflect this recent convergence.)

[domel]

Thank you for the feedback and suggestions. I have updated the PR as proposed and re-titled it to "Add definitions required for triple terms".

[domel]

See PR #31

[niklasl]

Update this to the definition in the RDF representation?

[domel]

There is a PR for RDF Representation, I will handle this in a couple of days.

[TallTed]

Small things, improving markup

[domel]

@timothee-haudebourg could you take a look?