Re: Implementation report RDF Semantics

On 17-12-13 21:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Here is my analysis of the two "failures" from Corese.
>
> datatypes-intensional-xsd-integer-string-incompatible
>      The test says that it is inconsistent to state that xsd:integer is a
>      subclass of xsd:string.

Jan and I had a long discussion about this semantic feature. It requires 
a type of OWL reasoning, namely that the primitive datatypes have 
disjoint extensions. RDFS-type subclass reasoning is too unconstrained 
for this.

Guus

>
> As most implementations directly implement datatype reasoning, they don't
> depend on this fact about integers and strings.  They can correctly reason
> about data values without noticing this invariant fact about the datatype
> classes themselves.
>
> OWL implementations have to reason from facts like these, for example to
> correctly infer that the intersection of string and integer is empty,
> and so
> any property with both string and integer as a range can never have any
> fillers.
>
>
> xmlsch-02-whitespace-facet-3
>      Test that an explicit literal implies a blank filler that is a Literal
>
> Most forward-chaining implementations of RDF reasoning do not directly
> perform complete entailment.  This kind of inference and perhaps one other
> is then handled by a separate portion of the system, which appears to
> not be
> part of the Corese that was used in the testing.
>
>
> So, Corese appears to have a good implementation of the core of
> forward-chaining RDF entailment, but does not directly implement two
> special cases (one related to datatype intensions and one related to
> datatype extensions and blank nodes).
>
>
> peter
>
>
>
>
> On 12/17/2013 10:00 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Looks much better! Thanks
>>
>> Guys, we have two implementations of semantics. One is 100% (hurray
>> Jan!), one is almost 100%. Peter, it would probably be good to have a
>> good idea tomorrow why Corese fails on two tests and whether those are
>> essential in terms of testing. Put it another way, can we try to go to
>> PR based on these test results?
>>
>> (We are still missing Michael Schreiber's report...)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 21:15:29 UTC