W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Latest iteration of RDF Datatyping WD (ship it!)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:23:37 +0300
To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E1E469.13334%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-16 13:58, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:


>> Rule 3 above follows from the rdfs:range of
>> rdfd:datatype defined in Rule 0, and thus is
>> unnecessary.
> 
> Right, that's true

Well, you pointed it out to me ;-)


> I've found
> 
> ### rules for RDFD entailment
> 
> @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> .
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix rdfd: <http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping#> .
> @prefix : <rdfd-rules#> .
> 
> rdfd:Datatype a rdfs:Class; rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .
> rdfd:datatype a rdf:Property; rdfs:domain rdf:Property; rdfs:range
> rdfd:Datatype.
> rdfd:lex a rdf:Property; rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource; rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .
> 
> { :rule1a . ?d a rdfd:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:domain ?d } .
> { :rule1b . ?d a rdfd:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfd:lex
> } .
> { :rule2a . ?p rdfd:datatype ?d . ?s ?p ?o . ?o rdfd:lex ?l } log:implies { ?o
> a ?d } .
> { :rule2b . ?p rdfd:datatype ?d . ?s ?p ?o . ?o rdfd:lex ?l } log:implies { ?o
> ?d ?l } .
> 
> 
> working with Euler (but using the -test command line switch
> to disable some optimization stuff)
> remark that I've added 2b (formerly known as 4

I'm still wondering about the necessity of 2b. It's not
quite as troublesome to me as e.g. inferring a datatype
property idiom from an inline idiom, but I'm still not
sure it is essential.

Can you clarify for me what breaks if it is removed?

Also, if 2b is present, then 2a is unnecessary, since
the rdf:type of ?o can then be inferred from the
rdfs:domain of ?d.

> (and I now
> understand Pat's remark about rule numbering...))
> also the reason for the a and b's is to have
> only 1 statement in the THEN part btw)
> Is that OK??? (then I put in the web)

That's fine. I will change the WD to reflect that practice.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 07:20:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:29 EDT