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

RE: MT RDFS closure rule bug?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:08:58 +0100
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCECKCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


> 
> >Pat,
> >
> >don't we need RDFS closure rules that add range and domain constraints
> >e.g.
> >
> >aaa [rdfs:range] yyy
> >yyy [rdfs:subClassOf] zzz
> >
> >then add
> >
> >aaa [rdfs:range] zzz
> >
> >
> >and similarly for rdfs:domain.
> 
> NO. That would be disastrous for the datatyping and in any case not 
> make sense. Why do want them?
> 
> 

We don't *want* them, they are just true!
Or maybe I've been talking to Peter too much!

Any interpretation of any 

> >aaa [rdfs:range] yyy
> >yyy [rdfs:subClassOf] zzz


is an interpretation of

> >aaa [rdfs:range] zzz


thus the closure rule holds.

(Not) Proof:

Ahh, it depends on rdfs:range not being in the domain of discourse.
neglecting that little factette and invalidating the proof ...

Whenever 
iii aaa jjj .
then
jjj [rdf:type] yyy .
hence
jjj [rdf:type] zzz .

hence

aaa [rdfs:range] zzz .

==

I smell danger.


Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 05:09:23 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:24 EDT