Provenance-Enhanced Statements in Knowledge Graphs

It may state two separate claims as one.

The epistemic characterization of cognitive worlds is independent of any specific representational mechanism, supporting named graphs, quoted triples, and classical reification in a similar fashion.

“It also shows that epistemic characterization of cognitive worlds is independent of any specific representational mechanism, supporting named graphs, quoted triples, and classical reification in a similar fashion.”

It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

For any cognitive world x ⊆ P × {⊤, ⊥}: Σ r,x validates K ⇐⇒ x ∈ D r ; Σ r,x validates KD ⇐⇒ x ∈ D r and x is consistent, i.e., x is doxastic; Σ r,x validates KT ⇐⇒ x ∈ E r i.e., x is epistemic; Σ r,x validates KC ⇐⇒ x ∈ C r ; Σ r,x validates KDC ⇐⇒ x ∈ C r and x is consistent, i.e., x is conjectural.

“Theorem 3.5 (Inclusion Theorem).For any cognitive world x ⊆ P × {⊤, ⊥}:”

• Also stated in: § Definition 3.3 (Designated modal logic). · plain

  “Σ r,x validates K ⇐⇒ x ∈ D r ; Σ r,x validates KD ⇐⇒ x ∈ D r”

• Also stated in: § Definition 3.3 (Designated modal logic). · plain

  “Σ r,x validates KDC ⇐⇒ x ∈ C r and x is consistent, i.e., x is conjectural.”

• cites Vit26Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

If no explicit DEC typing is given, the implementation applies conservative defaults to simulate the behavior of non-DEC reasoners.

“If no explicit DEC typing is given, the implementation applies conservative defaults in order to simulate the behavior of non-DEC reasoners.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The implementation recognises cognitive worlds in three RDF representation styles: named graphs, RDF-star quoted triples, and classical reification.

“The implementation recognises cognitive worlds in three RDF representation styles: named graphs, RDF-star quoted triples, and classical reification.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The present prototype materialises all permeated triples upon executing queries, which makes its behaviour inspectable but multiplies the same triples when many worlds share the same background.

“The present prototype materialises all permeated triples upon executing queries, which makes its behaviour inspectable, but at the cost of multiplying the same triples when many worlds share the same background.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DEC reasoner does not introduce new interpretations for RDF terms, nor assign special meaning to ontological predicates such as rdfs:subClassOf, owl:sameAs.

“It does not introduce new interpretations for RDF terms, nor does it assign special meaning to ontological predicates such as rdfs:subClassOf, owl:sameAs.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DEC reasoner can detect inconsistencies between worlds (disagreements) and between a world and reality (delusions).

“The DEC reasoner can also detect inconsistencies between worlds (disagreements) and between a world and reality (delusions).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DEC reasoner does not erase the De Vere attribution; it is preserved as a belief with explicit metadata describing its relation to the factual layer.

“Yet, importantly, the DEC Reasoner does not erase the De Vere attribution, which is then preserved as a belief with explicit metadata describing its relation to the factual layer.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Without bivalence (and without axiom T), such collapse is not inevitable, and non-trivial systems can be generated.

“However, without bivalence (and without axiom T), such collapse is not inevitable, and non-trivial systems can be generated.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

This detection is optional, because checks may be expensive and many datasets only need permeation and local reasoning; it is performed when requested by explicit DEC instructions.

“This detection is optional, because the relevant checks may be expensive and because many datasets only need permeation and local reasoning.Thus, it is performed when requested by explicit DEC instructions in the dataset.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

With dec:checkInconsistencies, the DEC reasoner constructs relevant combinations of worlds and asks the underlying base reasoner whether their union is satisfiable.

“With this option, the DEC reasoner constructs relevant combinations of worlds and asks the underlying base reasoner whether their union is satisfiable.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

If two worlds cannot be jointly satisfied, the reasoner materialises a dec:disagreesWith relation between them.

“If two worlds cannot be jointly satisfied, the reasoner materialises a dec:disagreesWith relation between them.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

When RDF-star or reification are used, the reasoner reconstructs worlds from governing predicates and agents only.

“Indeed, when RDF-star or reification are used, the reasoner reconstructs worlds from governing predicates and agents only.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

For named graphs, the default DEC type treats it as an isolated graph with local inference (a doxastic world), while union graph behavior can be partially simulated by pairing unspecified named graphs with epistemic worlds.

“The DEC default therefore follows a common operational approach used by several RDF/OWL stores: the default DEC type for named graph treats it as an isolated graph with local inference (i.e., a doxastic world), while the so-called union graph behavior offered by some RDF stores can be partially simulated by pairing unspecified named graphs with epistemic worlds.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DEC framework has been implemented as a prototype reasoner for RDF datasets, built on Apache Jena Fuseki 5, exposing an ordinary SPARQL endpoint.

“The DEC framework has been implemented as a prototype reasoner for RDF datasets.7 The implementation is built on Apache Jena Fuseki 5 and exposes an ordinary SPARQL endpoint.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The dec:closedFor mechanism is specific to DEC and is based on explicit closure constraints.

“The second mechanism, dec:closedFor, is specific to DEC and is based on explicit closure constraints.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

With respect to r ′ , the old reality r becomes epistemic, since r ⊆ r ′ now holds.

“With respect to r ′ , the old reality r becomes epistemic, since r ⊆ r ′ now holds.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The prototype recognises cognitive worlds across different RDF representation styles (named graphs, quoted triples and reification), applies the permeation policies associated with epistemic types, delegates standard entailment to an underlying reasoner, and can annotate detected conflicts so that they become queryable parts of the dataset.

“The prototype recognises cognitive worlds across different RDF representation styles (named graphs, quoted triples, and reification), applies the permeation policies associated with epistemic types, delegates standard entailment to an underlying reasoner, and can annotate detected conflicts so that they become queryable parts of the dataset.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

If a world disagrees with any world participating in reality, the world is also typed as dec:delusionalWorld.

“If a world disagrees with any world participating in reality (e.g., epistemic worlds and/or the default graph), the world is also typed as dec:delusionalWorld.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DEC reasoner recognises cognitive worlds, applies appropriate permeation policies, materialises resulting graphs, and delegates ordinary RDF, RDFS, or OWL inference to the configured backend reasoner.

“The DEC reasoner recognises cognitive worlds, applies the appropriate permeation policies, materialises the resulting graphs, and delegates ordinary RDF, RDFS, or OWL inference to the configured backend reasoner.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The implementation provides two mechanisms for inconsistency detection: dec:checkInconsistencies, which works through the underlying reasoning engine, and dec:closedFor, handled directly by the DEC reasoner.

“Our implementation provides two mechanisms for this detection, dec:checkInconsistencies, which works through the underlying reasoning engine, and dec:closedFor, handled directly by the DEC reasoner.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

If the choice of axioms includes both axiom T and axioms C, the corresponding modal logic immediately leads to modal collapse, i.e., a system in which the modal and non-modal sets of formulas are identical, or to vacuity in the modal system: □φ → φ and φ → □φ imply □φ ⇐⇒ φ.

“If the choice of axioms includes both axiom T and axioms C, the corresponding modal logic immediately leads to the so-called modal collapse, i.e., a system in which the modal and non-modal sets of formulas are identical, or to vacuity in the modal system: □φ → φ and φ → □φ imply □φ ⇐⇒ φ.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Adding axioms D, 4, and 5 preserves soundness and completeness, so systems KDC and KDC45 are sound and complete.

“Adding axioms D, 4, and 5 preserves soundness and completeness, as they impose only standard relational constraints on R i and do not interfere with the truth-preservation condition required by axiom C. Consequently, systems KDC and KDC45 remain sound and complete.”

• cites Vit26Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The base logic may leave some formulas unentailed rather than forcing bivalence.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: For each world w and each base formula φ, V_w(φ) is a partial function that takes values in {⊤, ⊥}.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The act of adding provenance often signals limited epistemic commitment, because a claim regarded as unproblematic and directly grounded in reality would have little reason to be qualified by who asserted it and under which conditions.

“From an epistemological perspective, the very act of adding provenance often signals limited epistemic commitment: if a claim were regarded as unproblematic and directly grounded in reality, there would be little reason to qualify it explicitly by stating who asserted it and under which conditions.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Much of what is commonly treated as data is really the result of interpretive choices, shaped by instruments, protocols, and classificatory decisions rather than unmediated representations of reality.

“Much of what is commonly treated as data is really the result of interpretive choices; Gitelman's well-known claim that”

• cites Git13Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Kit14Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Current provenance models can record who asserted what, but they treat provenance as semantically neutral - attaching provenance to a statement is not supposed to alter its semantic interpretation or truth conditions - leaving underspecified how attributed claims relate to factual commitment, to one another, and to reasoning.

“Current provenance models can record who asserted what, but they typically treat provenance as semantically neutral, leaving underspecified how attributed claims relate to factual commitment, to one another, and to reasoning.”

• Also stated in: § 2 Provenance and Epistemic Characterization in KGs · plain

  “As explicitly noted by Sikos and Philp [SP20], provenance annotations are intended to provide contextual information “without altering the semantic interpretation” of the underlying statements.”

• Also stated in: § 2 Provenance and Epistemic Characterization in KGs · plain

  “In other words, attaching provenance to a triple is not supposed to affect its truth conditions.”

• cites [SP20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

More recently, a third multifactorial framework for peptic ulcer disease has been proposed, in which H. pylori remains the primary cause but NSAIDs and stress are considered contributing or aggravating elements.

“Yet, more recently, a third multifactorial framework has been proposed (but not yet universally accepted), in which H. pylori remains the primary cause, but additional factors such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and, again, stress are considered as contributing or aggravating elements [MMO + 17].”

• cites MMO + 17Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Past attempts at epistemic characterization of knowledge graphs raised concerns about reasoning, as witnessed by the Superman Paradox: from 'Lois Lane believes Superman can fly' one should not infer 'Lois Lane believes Clark Kent can fly,' even if Superman is Clark Kent.

“Indeed, past attempts for epistemic characterization of KGs raised many concerns about reasoning, witnessed by the well-known Superman Paradox : from”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

One peptic ulcer explanatory model was first accepted and then rejected by the scientific community and replaced by another only when new evidence was considered.

“Yet one was first accepted and then rejected by the scientific community and replaced by another only when new evidence was considered.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Several works on uncertainty in knowledge graphs confirm that conflicts, heterogeneous sources, and competing interpretations of statement aggregates are pervasive, yet are usually managed procedurally rather than modeled explicitly.

“Several works on uncertainty in KGs confirm the centrality of this issue, pointing out that conflicts, heterogeneous sources, and competing interpretations of statement aggregates are pervasive, yet are usually managed procedurally rather than modeled explicitly [CDG25].”

• cites CDG25Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The DEC model supports reasoning over provenance-enhanced statements without the difficulties that have discouraged reasoning over quoted or reified statements in the Semantic Web, such as the Superman paradox.

“Additionally, this model supports reasoning over provenance-enhanced statements without the known difficulties that have discouraged reasoning over quoted or reified statements in the Semantic Web, e.g., the Superman paradox.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

For a significant period, the explanatory models of peptic ulcer disease coexisted.

“For a significant period, these explanatory models coexisted.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Later extensive clinical validation settled the debate and created a new consensus on peptic ulcer disease.

“In the early 1980s, a competing explanatory framework emerged, identifying Helicobacter pylori as the causal factor [MW84] and later still extensive clinical validation settled the debate and created a new consensus [Nat94].”

• cites Nat94Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Although semantic neutrality of provenance simplifies modeling, it is inadequate in many practical situations.

“While semantic neutrality simplifies modeling, it proves inadequate in many practical situations.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Wikidata approach preserves alternative claims without collapsing them, but relegates epistemic distinctions to an informal ranking mechanism and to application-level interpretation.

“This approach preserves alternative claims without collapsing them, but at the cost of relegating epistemic distinctions to an informal ranking mechanism and to application-level interpretation [DPPTV24].”

• cites DPPTV24Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In [VKH24], semantic units are introduced as meaningful subgraphs that support structured reasoning beyond the level of individual triples.

“In [VKH24] the notion of semantic units is introduced, namely meaningful subgraphs that support structured reasoning beyond the level of individual triples: epistemically relevant content in KGs needs to be organized at a higher level than single statements.”

• cites VKH24Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Wikidata, all claims are represented as reified statements enriched with provenance, qualifiers, and ranks, and a single statement can be promoted as factual by asserting it again as an unreified triple.

“For instance, in Wikidata all claims are represented as reified statements enriched with provenance, qualifiers, and ranks (preferred, normal, deprecated), while a single statement can be promoted as factual by asserting it again as an unreified triple [VK14].”

• cites VK14Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Contemporary knowledge graphs overwhelmingly deal with capta - attributions of authorship, datings and classifications of artefacts and cultural heritage items - rather than with observer-independent data, because such assertions are the outcomes of scholarly analysis rather than objective measures or evidence.

“Current knowledge graphs overwhelmingly deal with capta; clearly, assertions such as the attributions of authorship, the datings, the classifications of artefacts and cultural heritage items, are not objective measures or evidence, but the outcomes of scholarly analysis, which are typically reported together with their sources and justifications.”

• cites [Dru11]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Natural language expresses a neutral provenance statement 'according to X, φ' through verbs such as writes, believes, proves, and supposes, each conveying a different relationship between φ and factuality and different expectations about stability, revisability, and authority.

“A neutral PES”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The relevant authorship and peptic ulcer theories are separate and disjoint from an epistemological point of view, even when sharing individual assertions, and cannot be deflated as compatible subsets or intersections of one another.

“but we are not in a position to deflate these different positions as compatible subsets or intersections of one another: the relevant theories are, from an epistemological point of view, separate and disjoint even when sharing individual assertions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Scholarly and scientific knowledge typically evolves through theories, coherent sets of interdependent claims that are meant to be considered, accepted, revised, or abandoned only as a whole.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Leonardo appears as an author of Salvator Mundi in at least three different authorship theories, and stress appears as a cause of peptic ulcer in two separate theories.

“For instance, Leonardo appears as an author of the Salvator Mundi in at least three different authorship theories (alone or in collaboration with other painters of his school), and similarly stress appears as a cause of peptic ulcer in two separate theories”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Cognitive modal logics (doxastic, epistemic, and conjectural) provide a foundation for modelling epistemic statuses and the relationship between statements and the agents or sources that support them.

“These logics provide a foundation for modelling epistemic statuses and the relationship between statements and the agents or sources that support them.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Similar situations of competing, methodologically credible lines of evidence pointing in opposite directions exist in scientific domains, where factual objectivity is often assumed without solid justification.

“Similar situations exist also in scientific domains, where factual objectivity is often assumed even without solid justification.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The attribution of Salvator Mundi is subject to a prolonged debate, with the well-publicized Leonardo da Vinci attribution coexisting with at least six other theories favoring other artists such as Boltraffio or Salaì.

“The well-publicized attribution to Leonardo da Vinci coexists with no less than six other theories where expert positions favor other artists, such as Boltraffio or Salaì, two of the main Leonardo's pupils (e.g., see [Zöl19], [The17]).”

• cites Zöl19Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites The17Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The peptic ulcer explanatory theories are partially overlapping, partially incompatible, and supported by different bodies of evidence.

“In many ways these theories are partially overlapping, partially incompatible, and supported by different bodies of evidence.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Wikidata introduces rankings and uncertainty indicators in a coarse and largely informal manner, without a clear semantic characterisation of the relationship between statements' provenance and reality.

“Systems such as Wikidata introduce rankings and uncertainty indicators, but do so in a coarse and largely informal manner, without a clear semantic characterisation of the relationship between statements' provenance and reality.”

• cites [VK14]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Provenance functions not only as a technical device but also as implicit evidence of uncertainty, contestability, and interpretation.

“Provenance thus functions not only as a technical device, but also as implicit evidence of uncertainty, contestability, and interpretation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In the early 1980s, a competing explanatory framework identified Helicobacter pylori as the causal factor of peptic ulcer disease.

“In the early 1980s, a competing explanatory framework emerged, identifying Helicobacter pylori as the causal factor [MW84] and later still extensive clinical validation settled the debate and created a new consensus [Nat94].”

• cites MW84Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

Interpreting provenance predicates as indicators of epistemic stance and grouping provenance-homogeneous statements into cognitive worlds enables principled reasoning over attributed content without collapsing disagreements into inconsistencies.

“thereby enabling principled reasoning over attributed content without collapsing disagreements into inconsistencies.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Epistemically relevant content in knowledge graphs needs to be organized at a higher level than single statements.

“In [VKH24] the notion of semantic units is introduced, namely meaningful subgraphs that support structured reasoning beyond the level of individual triples: epistemically relevant content in KGs needs to be organized at a higher level than single statements.”

• cites VKH24Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Semantic-unit approaches identify useful aggregates but do not specify how they relate to reality or to one another.

“They identify useful aggregates, but do not specify how they relate to reality or to one another.”

• cites VKH24Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Treating claims as if they were data misrepresents their epistemic status and obscures the dynamics of knowledge production.

“Treating such claims as if they were data misrepresents their epistemic status and obscures the dynamics of knowledge production.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Knowledge graphs, as constructed and curated in practice, overwhelmingly encode claims as they appear in scholarly texts, archival catalogues, scientific publications, or databases, together with their sources and justificatory contexts.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Disagreement in knowledge graphs is frequent, persistent, and often irreducible across domains, humanities or hard sciences.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Named graphs allow triples to be grouped, named, separated, cited, imported and associated with different provenance, but do not have a single natural semantics, and may act as partitions, quoted graphs, isolated contexts, online graphs or provenance carriers within the same approach.

“Named graphs offer a graphlevel alternative for contexts by allowing triples to be grouped, named, separated, cited, imported, and associated with different provenance [CBHS05]; yet, named graphs do not have a single natural semantics, and may act as partitions, quoted graphs, isolated contexts, online graphs, or provenance carriers within the same representation approach [AW19].”

• cites [CBHS05]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [AW19]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Formally, the standard axioms of rational doxastic logic, K and D, are enriched with axiom C that stipulates that all established predicates are adopted within the hypothetical scenario together with chosen non-established ones.

“Formally, the standard axioms of rational doxastic logic, K and D, are enriched with axiom C that stipulates that all established predicates are adopted within the hypothetical scenario together with chosen non-established ones.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Rule N implies that every theorem on the non-modal fragment of the logic is also a theorem inside the modal fragment.

“Rule N introduces an idea of predictability: every theorem on the non-modal fragment of the logic is also a theorem inside the modal fragment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In the epistemic setting, this tradition is represented by Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL), whose operators-such as public announcement, update, and revision-model changes in information by restricting the set of admissible worlds.

“In the epistemic setting, this tradition is represented by Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) [vDvdHK07], whose operators-such as public announcement, update, and revision-model changes in information by restricting the set of admissible worlds.”

• cites vDvdHK07Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

With DEC, settlements, disagreements, delusions, and personal opinions are emergent phenomena definable in terms of locality, permeation, and consistency with respect to the reality graph r.

“With DEC these are meant as emergent phenomena definable in terms of locality, permeation, and consistency with respect to the reality graph r.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Unlike standard DEL operators, settle induces a shift in the inclusion hierarchy: a world that was conjectural with respect to the original reality becomes the new reality, makes the old reality an epistemic world, and makes delusional every conjectural world containing (φ, ⊥).

“Unlike standard DEL operators, settle induces a shift in the inclusion hierarchy: a world that was conjectural with respect to the original reality becomes the new reality, makes the old reality an epistemic world, and makes delusional every conjectural world containing (φ, ⊥).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC leaves the RDF interpretation unchanged and introduces its semantic extension at the level of graph organisation: graphs may be grouped, related, and interpreted with respect to cognitive roles, while meaning of RDF terms and evaluation of individual triples remain governed by RDF semantics.

“It leaves the RDF interpretation unchanged and introduces its semantic extension at the level of graph organisation: graphs may be grouped, related, and interpreted with respect to cognitive roles, while the meaning of RDF terms and the evaluation of individual triples remain governed by RDF semantics.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Introspection, under the form of axioms 4 and 5, is provided as theorems within this setup, rather than axioms.

“Introspection, under the form of axioms 4 and 5, is provided as theorems within this setup, rather than axioms.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Worlds that are not epistemic may be mutually incompatible, may conflict with reality, or may even be internally inconsistent, without affecting r or the validity of a DEC-interpretation.

“In fact, worlds that are not epistemic may be mutually incompatible, may conflict with reality, or may even be internally inconsistent, without affecting r or the validity of a DEC-interpretation.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Named graphs provide a direct way to group statements into worlds, but equivalent groupings can also be obtained through quoted triples, classical reification, or n-ary relations, by means of governing relations that link statements to sources, agents, and cognitive roles.

“Named graphs provide a direct way to group statements into worlds, but equivalent groupings can also be obtained through quoted triples, classical reification, or n-ary relations, by means of governing relations that link statements to sources, agents, and cognitive roles.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Axiom D enforces internal coherence of the belief state, axiom 4 enforces stability under iteration for what is inside the belief state, and axiom 5 enforces recognizability of non commitment.

“Axiom D enforces internal coherence of the belief state, axiom 4 enforces stability under iteration for what is inside the belief state, and axiom 5 enforces recognizability of non commitment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The same structural principles apply to all cognitive worlds: they share provenance and epistemic fate; locality controls inference boundaries; rationality constrains internal coherence; permeation regulates the relationship between worlds and asserted facts.

“Regardless of the typology of cognitive world, the same structural principles apply: cognitive worlds are collections of statements that share provenance and epistemic fate; locality controls inference boundaries; rationality constrains internal coherence; permeation regulates the relationship between worlds and asserted facts.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

K+D+C characterise internally coherent hypothetical extensions of factuality.

“When rationality is also required, K + D + C characterise internally coherent hypothetical extensions of factuality.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Using RDF-star, the cognitive world is not an explicit container but the set of embedded triples governed by the same epistemic predicate.

“Using RDF-star (or, RDF 1.2), the same triple is embedded and annotated with a provenance relation indicating that Alice knows it.The cognitive world is not an explicit container but the set of embedded triples governed by the same epistemic predicate.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inference under □ mirrors inference in the base logic, but remains confined to the modal context.

“Inference under □ mirrors inference in the base logic, but remains confined to the modal context.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Classical RDF reification and related meta-statement approaches make statements available as objects of discourse, but at the cost of verbosity and unclear inferential behavior.

“Classical RDF reification and related meta-statement approaches make statements available as objects of discourse, but at the cost of verbosity and unclear inferential behavior [YK03].”

• cites [YK03]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Within DEC, graphs may be associated with cognitive worlds; a cognitive world collects statements that share provenance and cognitive status.

“Within DEC, graphs may be associated with cognitive worlds.A cognitive world collects statements that share provenance and cognitive status.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Across all representations, only epistemic content contributes to factuality, and DEC satisfaction is determined by RDF satisfaction of epistemic content alone.

“Across all representations, one basic principle for entailment holds: only epistemic content contributes to factuality, and DEC satisfaction is determined by RDF satisfaction of epistemic content alone.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

To account for this form of epistemic evolution, [Vit26] introduces the dynamic operator settle.

“To account for this form of epistemic evolution, [Vit26] introduces the dynamic operator settle.”

• cites Vit26Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Because dc:creator has been closed for subject/object alternatives, the Shakespeare and De Vere worlds disagree, as they assign different creators to the same work.

“Since dc:creator has been closed for subject/object alternatives, the two worlds disagree, as they assign different creators to the same work.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

DEC treats personal-opinion worlds as irreconcilable with the factual core.

“DEC treats personal-opinion worlds as irreconcilable with the factual core.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC introduces a semantic structuring of RDF graphs in which some graphs are interpreted as expressing specific cognitive stances, and only a subset of these graphs contributes to semantic commitment.

“DEC introduces a semantic structuring of RDF graphs in which some graphs are interpreted as expressing specific cognitive stances.Only a subset of these graphs contributes to semantic commitment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC's main operation is graph construction: recognising epistemically typed worlds, materialising the permeations required by their type, invoking the configured reasoner over the resulting graphs, and recording optional conflict annotations when requested.

“Its main operation is graph construction: to recognise epistemically typed worlds, to materialise the permeations required by their type, to invoke the configured reasoner over the resulting graphs, and to record optional conflict annotations when requested.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Such closure is local to the specified predicate and to subject/object alternatives, so it neither changes the global semantics of dc:creator nor makes RDF closed-world in general.

“Such closure is local to the specified predicate and to subject/object alternatives, so this assignment neither changes the global semantics of dc:creator, nor, importantly, does it make RDF closed-world in general.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The resulting system S5 is the classical abstract account of factual knowledge in multi-agent settings.

“The resulting system S5 is the classical abstract account of factual knowledge in multi-agent settings [FHMV95].”

• cites FHMV95Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Cognitive modal logics share structural characteristics: their semantics explicitly separates reality from subjective states; they admit multiple independent modal systems, one per agent or cognitive stance, each governed by its own relation and valuation; and they treat axiom choices and combinations as the foundation of qualitatively distinct reasoning modes.

“Cognitive modal logics share some structural characteristics.First, their semantics explicitly separates reality from subjective states.Second, they admit multiple independent modal systems, one per agent or cognitive stance, each governed by its own relation and valuation.Finally, rather than treating additional axioms as incremental refinements of a single modality, cognitive logics treat axiom”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

The semantic role of provenance is to delimit such units and to support their epistemic interpretation.

“The semantic role of provenance is therefore to delimit such units and to support their epistemic interpretation.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Within DEC, theories are the primary carriers of epistemic characterisation: provenance identifies aggregates of claims to be interpreted together.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Epistemic characterisation is introduced by associating a statement with a governing actor via a governing predicate, which conceptually creates a cognitive world.

“Epistemic characterisation is introduced by associating the statement with a governing actor (e.g., Alice) via a governing predicate (e.g., says, believes, knows, supposes).Conceptually, this creates a cognitive world.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The paper proposed DEC as a semantic framework that interprets provenance relations as indicators of epistemic stance and organizes provenance-homogeneous bundles of claims into cognitive worlds.

“We proposed DEC as a semantic framework that interprets provenance relations as indicators of epistemic stance and organizes provenance-homogeneous bundles of claims into cognitive worlds.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

This role is realized through governing predicates: provenance relations that link agents, sources, or justificatory acts to theories and therefore to their constituent statements.

“This role is realized through governing predicates: provenance relations that link agents, sources, or justificatory acts to theories and therefore to their constituent statements.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

DEC addresses this missing layer by providing a semantic characterization of the cognitive containers in which attributed statements occur.

“Instead, it provides a semantic characterization of the cognitive containers in which attributed statements occur.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The semantics of DEC does not require complete materialisation; consequences could be computed lazily and locally and cached more selectively.

“The semantics of DEC does not really require complete materialisation: future implementation could compute consequences lazily and locally, and cache them more selectively.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The inclusion theorem entails that every set of assigned statements is a doxastic cognitive world, any subset of reality r is an epistemic cognitive world, and every superset of r is a conjectural world.

“The inclusion theorem allows us to conclude that, given a set of atomic statements P , and a selection of assigned statements within P , called r (for reality), every set of assigned statements is a doxastic cognitive world, any subset of r is an epistemic cognitive world, and every superset of r is a conjectural world.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Among cognitive worlds, those characterized as Epistemic play a special role; DEC defines a graph called reality, constructed from epistemic content.

“Among cognitive worlds, those characterized as Epistemic play a special role.DEC defines a graph called reality, constructed from epistemic content.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC makes it possible to represent mutually incompatible theories without forcing the dataset itself to become inconsistent, because DEC satisfaction depends only on r.

“DEC makes it possible to represent mutually incompatible theories without forcing the dataset itself to become inconsistent, because DEC satisfaction depends only on r.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

RDF-star and SPARQL-star provide the most recent mechanism for statement-level metadata, in which quoted triples may occur directly as subjects or objects of other triples, making it easier to attach provenance, time, certainty or source information to individual statements.

“RDF-star and SPARQL-star provide the most recent mechanism for statement-level metadata: quoted triples may now occur directly as subjects or objects of other triples, making it easier to attach provenance, time, certainty, or source information to individual statements [HCKS21].”

• cites [HCKS21]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

This principle is known as intensionality, implying that formulas which are equivalent in the base logic are not, in general, interchangeable within modal contexts.

“This principle is known as intensionality, implying that formulas which are equivalent in the base logic are not, in general, interchangeable within modal contexts.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In cognitive terms, this corresponds to the requirement that an agent's beliefs, assumptions, or conjectures do not allow contradictions.

“In cognitive terms, this corresponds to the requirement that an agent's beliefs, assumptions, or conjectures do not allow contradictions.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Axiom T enforces inside-out permeation: whatever is established under the modality must also hold at the base level.

“Axiom T enforces inside-out permeation: whatever is established under the modality must also hold at the base level.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC scaffolding is independent of syntax: contribution to factuality depends entirely on the epistemic typing of the cognitive world or of the governing predicate.

“Thus DEC scaffolding is independent of syntax: contribution to factuality depends entirely on the epistemic typing of the cognitive world or of the governing predicate.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Formally, these operators act by eliminating worlds that are incompatible with newly acquired information, thereby refining an agent's epistemic range.

“Formally, these operators act by eliminating worlds that are incompatible with newly acquired information, thereby refining an agent's epistemic range.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Modal logics frequently ensure that the inferential mechanisms of the base logic, and most notably Uniform Substitution, do not traverse the locality boundaries of the modal operators.

“Modal logics frequently ensure that the inferential mechanisms of the base logic, and most notably Uniform Substitution, do not traverse the locality boundaries of the modal operators.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Graphs that are not subsets of r impose no RDF truth conditions; only epistemic ones do.

“No further condition is imposed.In particular, graphs that are not subsets of r impose no RDF truth conditions: only epistemic ones do.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The chosen representation model does not affect cognitive inference but only how easily statements can interact between worlds and factuality.

“The chosen representation model does not affect cognitive inference but only how easily statements can interact between worlds and factuality.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The first approach (explicit DEC type) is only possible if the cognitive world is provided with an identifier (named graphs); other syntaxes require characterisation of the predicate.

“Of course, the first approach is only possible if the cognitive world is provided with an identifier, i.e. with named graphs.Other syntaxes require the characterization of the predicate.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Wikidata's modeling conventions do not amount to a general theory of epistemic statuses; referenced statements may be well sourced, deprecated, disputed or merely reported, but the semantics of these distinctions is only partially formalized.

“However, Wikidata's modeling conventions do not amount to a general theory of epistemic statuses: referenced statements may be well sourced, deprecated, disputed, or merely reported, but the semantics of these distinctions is only partially formalized [DPPTV24].”

• cites [DPPTV24]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The syntactic form changes how worlds are recovered from the dataset, while their DEC behaviour depends just on the epistemic typing.

“The syntactic form changes how worlds are recovered from the dataset, while their DEC behaviour depends just on the epistemic typing.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The choice of axioms enforces internal coherence (axiom D, now available as a theorem, is a direct application of Axiom T), and the two standard forms of introspection.

“Additionally the choice of axioms also enforces internal coherence (axiom D, now available as a theorem, is a direct application of Axiom T), and the two standard forms of introspection.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Conjectural logic models hypothetical reasoning based on true information.

“Conjectural logic models hypothetical reasoning based on true information.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Beyond their formal role, the modal axioms admit a direct conceptual reading that is particularly relevant for cognitive interpretations.

“Beyond their formal role, the modal axioms introduced above admit a direct conceptual reading that is particularly relevant for cognitive interpretations, i.e., the main discussion topic of this paper.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Structural approaches such as n-ary relations, fluent-based approaches, NdFluents and singleton properties multiply the entities or predicates involved, creating numerous contextualized triples for different contextual truths.

“Singleton properties [NS16] multiply predicates instead, creating numerous contextualized triples using multiple context-appropriate predicates over the same entities.”

• cites [NS16]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

eSPARQL extends SPARQL-star with epistemic querying over RDF-star metadata using a four-valued logic, in which an embedded statement is not automatically expected to be factual and can be believed true, false, unknown or conflicting by an individual or group.

“eSPARQL extends SPARQL-star with epistemic querying over RDF-star metadata, using a four-valued logic [PHS + 24].”

• Also stated in: § 6 Related works · plain

  “an embedded statement is not automatically expected to be factual: it can be believed true, believed false, believed unknown, or believed conflicting by an individual or group.”

• cites [PHS + 24]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC's main interest is the relation between the presence of a statement in a graph and its factual commitment, characterizing not only where a statement comes from, but also what kind of epistemic world it belongs to and how it may interact with the factual core.

“Its main interest is the relation between the presence of a statement in a graph and its factual commitment, characterizing not only where a statement comes from, but also what kind of epistemic world the statement belongs to and how, if at all, it may interact with the factual core.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Reification and n-ary relations expose internal entities more directly; even when a statement does not contribute to factuality, its components may still be accessible to inference.

“Reification and n-ary relations expose internal entities more directly.Even when a statement does not contribute to factuality, its components may still be accessible to inference.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Given a formula φ such that (φ, ⊤) ∈ x but (φ, ⊤) / ∈ r, the application of settle φ produces a new designated reality r ′ = r ∪ {(φ, ⊤)}.

“Given a formula φ such that (φ, ⊤) ∈ x but (φ, ⊤) / ∈ r, the application of settle φ produces a new designated reality r ′ = r ∪ {(φ, ⊤)}.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Adopting intensional reasoning in cognitive modal logics does not weaken identity, nor undermine Semantic Web reasoning, but supports a strict locality paradigm: identity assertions are evaluated relative to the cognitive worlds they appear in.

“Adopting intensional reasoning in cognitive modal logics does not weaken identity, nor does it undermine Semantic Web reasoning, but supports a strict locality paradigm: identity assertions, like all other statements, are evaluated relative to the cognitive worlds they appear in.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Because the Shakespeare attribution is epistemic and permeated reality, the De Vere attribution also disagrees with reality and is marked as delusional.

“But since the Shakespeare attribution is epistemic, it permeated reality and therefore the De Vere attribution also disagrees with reality and is thus marked as delusional.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

A declaration such as rdf:subject dec:closedFor dc:creator says that, for the predicate dc:creator, worlds assigning different objects to the same subject are incompatible; each world is closed to multiple dc:creator assignments over the same subjects.

“A declaration such as rdf:subject dec:closedFor dc:creator says that, for the predicate dc:creator, worlds assigning different objects to the same subject are incompatible: each world is closed to multiple dc:creator assignments over the same subjects.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Together they yield the well-known system KD45, the canonical abstract account of idealized belief.

“Together they yield the well-known system KD45, the canonical abstract account of idealized belief [Hin62].”

• cites Hin62Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The relationships between doxastic, epistemic, and conjectural logics can be understood within a precise structural characterization, expressed by the inclusion theorem of cognitive logics, a unifying semantic account of how these logics relate to one another and to reality.

“The relationships between doxastic, epistemic, and conjectural logics can be understood within a precise structural characterization, expressed by the inclusion theorem of cognitive logics [Vit26], a unifying semantic account of how these logics relate to one another and to reality.”

• cites Vit26Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

K+C characterise conjectural worlds, in which hypotheses extend the domain of asserted facts.

“K + C characterise conjectural worlds, in which hypotheses extend the domain of asserted facts.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In its standard normal form, epistemic logic is captured by the combination of axioms K, T, and 5 over the chosen base logic with Rule N (note that T and 5 entail D and 4).

“In its standard normal form, epistemic logic is captured by the combination of axioms K, T, and 5 over the chosen base logic with Rule N (note that T and 5 entail D and 4).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Axiom T introduces inside-out permeation: every local statement is also asserted (true).

“Adding axiom T introduces inside-out permeation: every local statement is also asserted (i.e., true).”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The :ShakespeareWroteHamlet graph is epistemic because it is governed by :agree, and therefore contributes its authorship assignment to reality.

“The graph :ShakespeareWroteHamlet is epistemic because it is governed by :agree; it therefore contributes its authorship assignment to reality.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Every subset of the reality graph r is epistemic, regardless of whether it belongs to W or is explicitly labelled as epistemic through τ.

“Since, intuitively, the nature of an epistemic graph is to represent a (possibly partial) slice of reality, even when it is not explicitly recognized as an independent world, we define every subset of r as epistemic, regardless of whether it belongs to W or it is explicitly labelled as epistemic through τ .”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Axiom C introduces outside-in permeation, injecting asserted facts into the cognitive world.

“Starting again from K, axiom C introduces outside-in permeation, injecting asserted facts into the cognitive world.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC recognises verbatim worlds, which record statements without cognitive commitment, and delusional worlds, which prove inconsistent when confronted with asserted facts.

“In addition to doxastic, epistemic, and conjectural worlds, DEC also recognises verbatim worlds, which record statements without cognitive commitment, personal opinions, completely detached from reasonably verifiable statements (as in “David believes that pizza is better than hot dogs”), and delusional worlds, which prove inconsistent when confronted with asserted facts”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

These structural provenance-representation approaches are not meant for characterizing the epistemic status of claims.

“Yet, these approaches are not meant for characterizing the epistemic status of claims, and furthermore create numerous additional entities or predicates for different contextual truths to coexist in the same dataset.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Axiom D captures a notion of rationality by excluding the simultaneous validation of □φ and □¬φ, enforcing internal coherence of the modal state.

“Axiom D captures a notion of rationality.By excluding the simultaneous validation of □φ and □¬φ, it enforces internal coherence of the modal state.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Axiom K enforces locality: what is true or inferable inside a cognitive world depends only on the content of that world, and no inference automatically crosses world boundaries unless explicitly specified.

“At the base of all cognitive worlds lies axiom K, which enforces locality: what is true or inferable inside a cognitive world depends only on the content of that world.No inference automatically crosses the boundary between worlds, and no commitment is inherited unless explicitly specified.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The inclusion theorem establishes a strict correspondence between cognitive modal axioms and the set-theoretic relations of cognitive worlds with respect to the designated reality: all consistent cognitive worlds built upon subsets of P are doxastic, and once a reality world r is designated, all subsets of r are doxastic worlds, and all supersets of r are conjectural worlds.

“The inclusion theorem therefore establishes a strict correspondence between cognitive modal axioms and the set-theoretic relations of cognitive worlds with respect to the designated reality: all consistent cognitive worlds built upon subsets of P are doxastic, and once a reality world r is designated, all subsets of r are doxastic worlds, and all supersets of r are conjectural worlds.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

DEC does not replace RDF-star, named graphs, nanopublications, CRMinf or contextual reasoning frameworks.

“It does not replace RDF-star, named graphs, nanopublications, CRMinf, or contextual reasoning frameworks.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Axiom C enforces outside-in permeation: whatever is established at the base level is inherited by the modality.

“Axiom C, by contrast, enforces outside-in permeation: whatever is established at the base level is inherited by the modality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Reasoning in the modal world is understandable, homogeneous and predictable, being fully in line with reasoning in the outside world.

“Thus reasoning in the modal world is understandable and homogeneous and predictable, being fully in line with reasoning in the outside world.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Axiom K expresses a principle of locality: reasoning inside the modality is dependent only on what is already accessible under that modality.

“Axiom K expresses a principle of locality: reasoning inside the modality is dependent only on what is already accessible under that modality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Epistemic worlds are internally consistent and include all asserted facts relevant to their domain.

“Epistemic worlds are constrained both by locality and by rationality: they are internally consistent, and they include all asserted facts relevant to their domain.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The :DeVereWroteHamlet graph is doxastic because it is governed by :proposes.

“The graph :DeVereWroteHamlet is doxastic because it is governed by :proposes.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Agents have access to all currently established facts, and in addition they may adopt one or more unverified assumptions (e.g., in order to explore their consequences).

“Agents have access to all currently established facts, and in addition they may adopt one or more unverified assumptions (e.g., in order to explore their consequences).”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The purpose of the settle operator is to capture epistemic stabilization without collapsing the modal structure or resorting to world elimination, providing a formal mechanism for transitions between cognitive worlds.

“The purpose of the settle operator is therefore to capture epistemic stabilization without collapsing the modal structure or resorting to world elimination, providing a formal mechanism for transitions between cognitive worlds.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Mere provenance is too weak for the coexistence of competing attributions, whereas with DEC all attributions remain part of the dataset and their epistemic positions become queryable.

“This is precisely the kind of situation for which mere provenance is too weak: with DEC not only all attributions remain part of the dataset, but their epistemic positions become queryable.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

By grounding cognitive worlds in a family of cognitive modal logics (doxastic, epistemic and conjectural) and making locality and permeation explicit, DEC supports the coexistence of competing perspectives without collapsing them into inconsistency, while still enabling ordinary RDF/RDFS/OWL inference where factual commitment is warranted.

“By grounding cognitive worlds in a family of cognitive modal logics (doxastic, epistemic, and conjectural) and by making locality and permeation explicit, DEC supports the coexistence of competing perspectives without collapsing them into inconsistency, while still enabling ordinary RDF/RDFS/OWL inference where factual commitment is warranted.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

For each agent i, the operator □ i formalizes that the agent takes a statement to hold within its beliefs regardless of its valuation outside of them.

“Intuitively, for each agent i, the operator □ i formalizes that the agent takes a statement to hold within its beliefs regardless of its valuation outside of them.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The role of settle is to transform conjectural commitment into factual establishment.

“The role of settle is to transform conjectural commitment into factual establishment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

No semantic role is assigned to graph names outside N, and the RDF interpretation I is not extended to dataset components.

“No semantic role is assigned to graph names outside N , and the RDF interpretation I is not extended to dataset components.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Using classical reification, the cognitive world is reconstructed as the collection of all statement nodes sharing the same governance.

“Using classical reification or n-ary relations, the statement is represented as a node with explicit links to subject, predicate, and object, and that node is connected to Alice through an epistemic relation.The cognitive world is reconstructed as the collection of all statement nodes sharing the same governance.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Governing predicates determine how a theory is to be interpreted epistemically and how it relates to other theories and to established knowledge.

“Governing predicates determine how a theory is to be interpreted epistemically and how it relates to other theories and to established knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC does not prescribe a specific representation formalism; it specifies how epistemic commitment is interpreted once statements and provenance are encoded using existing Semantic Web technologies.

“DEC does not prescribe a specific representation formalism.Instead, it specifies how epistemic commitment is to be interpreted once statements and their provenance have been encoded using existing Semantic Web technologies.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

For each agent i, the operator □ i formalizes that the agent knows the statement, which presupposes its factuality.

“For each agent i, the operator □ i now formalizes that the agent knows the statement, which presupposes its factuality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Dynamic modal logics extend static modal systems with operators that describe the evolution of epistemic states over time.

“Dynamic modal logics extend static modal systems with operators that describe the evolution of epistemic states over time.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC uses two ways to characterise cognitive worlds and their cognitive stance: explicitly assigning a DEC type to the world, or assigning a cognitive stance to the governing predicate.

“DEC uses two ways to characterise cognitive worlds and therefore their cognitive stance, either by explicitly assigning a DEC type to the world, e.g., :factsKnownByAlice a dec:epistemicWorld. , or by assigning a cognitive stance to the governing predicate, e.g.: :knows a dec:epistemicPredicate.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The paper addressed the semantic gap between the widespread representation of provenance-enhanced statements in knowledge graphs and the lack of a principled account of how such statements relate to factual commitment and to one another.

“This paper addressed the semantic gap between the widespread representation of provenanceenhanced statements in knowledge graphs and the lack of a principled account of how such statements relate to factual commitment and to one another.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Cognitive modal logics act as a meta-reasoning layer above traditional RDF inference: agents reason over structured knowledge expressed in OWL and RDFS, but the truth of what they assert is modally qualified.

“Cognitive modal logics act as a meta-reasoning layer above traditional RDF inference: agents reason over structured knowledge expressed in OWL and RDFS, but the truth of what they assert is modally qualified.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In all representation cases, cognitive characterisation is external to the statement content; what differs is how strongly internal entities are isolated from the rest of the graph.

“So far, no cognitive characterisation has been specified, and in all cases, such characterisation is external to the statement content.What differs is how strongly the internal entities are isolated from the rest of the graph.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Existing models that package assertions with evidence and provenance can express complex networks of relations and epistemic statuses for basic triples, but a general characterization of the epistemic nature of these assertions is still missing.

“By packaging assertions with evidence and provenance, these models are able to express complex networks of relations and epistemic statutes for basic triples, but a general characterization of the epistemic nature of these assertions is still missing.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Only epistemic worlds participate in the interpretation of J, and none of the other worlds contribute to it nor prevent it in any form.

“Thus, only epistemic worlds participate in the interpretation of J, and none of the other worlds contribute to it nor prevent it in any form.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The notion of cognitive worlds applies independently of the specific representational mechanism used to associate statements with cognitive roles.

“Indeed, the notion of cognitive worlds applies independently of the specific representational mechanism used to associate statements with cognitive roles.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

If one also requires persistence of falsity, then w R_i w' means agreement on the entire defined part of w, which is the strongest form of informational extension.

“If one also requires persistence of falsity, then w R i w ′ means agreement on the entire defined part of w, which is the strongest form of informational extension.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Accessibility is interpreted as growth of information: wR_i w' means that, from the perspective of agent i, w' is obtained from w by adding determinations for formulas that were previously undefined, while preserving what was already established in w.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The present work focused on permeation between each world and reality.

“Third, the present work focused on permeation between each world and reality”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DEC can be adopted incrementally, without redefining RDF/OWL entailment, and can be integrated into existing infrastructures as a dataset-level service.

“This shows that DEC can be adopted incrementally, without redefining RDF/OWL entailment, and can be integrated into existing infrastructures as a dataset-level service.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Axiom C introduced in [Vit26] is not a classical frame condition but a semantic constraint on how accessibility interacts with truth evaluation, relying on non-bivalent base logics to avoid modal collapse.

“In addition, [Vit26] introduces a new axiom, called Axiom C, which is not a frame condition in the classical sense, but a semantic constraint on how accessibility interacts with truth evaluation, and it specifically relies on non-bivalent base logics to avoid modal collapse.”

• cites Vit26Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The base logic may leave some formulas unentailed rather than forcing bivalence.