W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [SWC] bNode modelling: was Re: RDF and OWL compatibility

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:49:09 +0100
To: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7A9B2DBA.C19B92EB-ONC12570F3.007D81D8-C12570F3.0082CF90@agfa.com>
Dave Reynolds wrote:
[...]
> If one used the naive modelling:
>
>    traveller(enrico).
>    traveller(michael).
>    has_address(enrico,bolzano).
>
>    has_address(?Person, bNode(_#(?Person))) :- traveller(?Person).
>
> Then the set of RDF triples we would infer would be:
>
>     :enrico  :has_address  :bolzano .
>     :enrico  :has_address  _:1 .
>     :michael :has_address  _:2 .
>
> but by RDF semantics that graph and the lean graph:
>
>     :enrico  :has_address  :bolzano .
>     :michael :has_address  _:3 .
>
> simply-entail each other. So in terms of a user processing RDF is such 
> modelling adequate? Presumably not, but it passes the tests in the wiki 
> page. What would be an example test which shows why it is not adequate, 
> from the point of view of a person processing RDF?

I am wondering how bNode(_#(?Person)) generates
Skolem function-al bnode labels i.e. I would
expect to find the same label for e.g.
_#(:DaveReynolds) and _#(:ReynoldsDave)
when it is the case that
:DaveReynolds owl:sameAs :ReynoldsDave.


-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 23:49:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:26 GMT