Jos de Bruijn wrote: > While trying to prove that the RIF Core version of the RDFS embedding I > came up with [1] is correct, I found out that it is not. In fact, I > believe it is not possible to embed all RIF-RDFS combinations into RIF > Core in a straightforward manner. The problem is with rdfs:Resource. > According to the semantics, every object in the domain is in the class > extension of rdfs:Resource. This is naturally expressed using the rule > Forall ?x (?x[rdf:type -> rdfs:Resource]) > > However, this rule is not safe. I see three ways of dealing with this > problem: > > 1) disallow using rdfs:Resource in the rules and in RDF triples that are > not of the form xxx rdf:type rdfs:Resource in the embedding > > 2) extending the embedding to define rules for all predicate symbols > appearing in the rule set, e.g., if ex:p is a binary predicate, we add > the rules > Forall ?x ?y (?x[rdf:type -> rdfs:Resource] :- ex:p(?x,?y)) > Forall ?x ?y (?y[rdf:type -> rdfs:Resource] :- ex:p(?x,?y)) > > 3) we drop the requirement of the rules being safe > > I would prefer option 1, because option 2 would make the embedding very > complicated and I guess it is desirable to have the embedding in RIF > Core (ruling out option 3). Something like option (1) seems like the best solution to me. However, wouldn't you also need permit triples of the form: xxx rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource ? Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 EnglandReceived on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 09:32:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:03 GMT