W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2008

limited negative guards for static OWL RL ruleset

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:59:40 +0100
Message-ID: <494BB6DC.2050500@inf.unibz.it>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I was thinking a bit more about the problem of the negative guards and
the static rule set we wish to provide for OWL RL.
We established that without negative guards, we cannot provide a finite
static ruleset, because the rules would depend on the literals actually
being used in the ontology.

Now, a property of the OWL 2 language is that there is a strict
separation between the object and data domains, both in the syntax and
the semantics.  For example, it is not possible to assert that an IRI is
a member of a datatype, nor is it possible to assert equality between
and IRI and a concrete data value.
Most importantly, the values of object properties can only be IRIs and
the values of data properties can only be literals. And, in OWL 2 RL we
only need to take individuals into account that are explicitly
represented using IRI or literals.

Therefore, a statement like t[rdf:type -> DT], where DT is a datatype
can never be derived if t is not a literal.  Consequently, we only need
to do type checking of the form at the bottom of section 4.4.2 of [1]
for literal values.

So, I believe that a restricted form kind of negative guard, namely one
that is restricted to the domain of literals (e.g.,
isNonIntegerLiteral), is sufficient for this static ruleset.


Best, Jos

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL
-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster


Received on Friday, 19 December 2008 14:59:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT