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

Re: review MT draft

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:37:43 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFAC7EC415.29A0EFB3-ONC1256B45.0062CFAA@bayer-ag.com>
>>Pat,
>>
>>(sorry if I sound too tired)
>>
>>1/ I've tried to check RDF and RDFS (and also some OWL)
>>entailment based on the rules in MT and haven't found problems
>>(actually I've got one testcase which is still running
>>i.e. some 350 billion steps so far, but that has nothing
>>to do with the MT I suppose)
>
>Hmmm...maybe not, but Id like to know which case that was so I can
>take another look.

it's not a singular case of one rule or so,
but one using axioms as in
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdf-rules.n3
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3
(but where we play with rule and premis reordering implementation)
and that for the kind of
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom.n3
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma.n3
example
now, I think we have some other than MT problem
(however, I have currently no idea at all
but it shouldn't be a loop)

>>2/ my main comment is w.r.t. the need for unasserted triples
>>i.e. one could assert e.g. rrr ppp ooo.
>>suppose rrr is a resource which is a set of triples
>>then those triples in rrr are *not* necesarily asserted
>>OK, this is when ppp is something like log:implies
>>or something else where we need dereferencing rrr
>>(or rrr could be identified by value such as in N3)
>>anyhow that rrr can be a set of unasserted RDF triples
>
>This point seems to go beyond RDF as it is currently constituted, so
>unless we plan to open up this issue of resources being sets of
>triples, I propose to ignore this issue for now.

fair enough (for the current state of the art of RDF MT)
but I think that "resources being sets of triples" are evident
(also in the light of tagging them or so, so this is
in a way related to the "(drop) reification" issue
and after all to the use/mention stuff)

>Mind you, that might be a good issue to open up, if folk feel that it
>doesn't go beyond our charter. (?)

I mind :-)

--
Jos
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 13:45:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:56 EDT