W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:51:30 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90CAF@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 09 April, 2003 15:50
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: Graham Klyne; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics)
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> here's an idea re health warning.
> 
> write a test case (would be a new kind of test case for us) that uses
> *OWL* semantics for inferring identity (eg. via 
> InverseFunctionalProperty).
> 
> The goal would be for inferences justified by the OWL rules to cause
> 'annoying' onclusions involving the resources named by 
> rdf:predicate, :subject 
> or :object properties. We could even ask TimBL if he could 
> re-couch his 
> concerns about the semantics using such an approach...
> 
> I understand this would need a fwd reference to OWL, but 
> since it would be 
> a 'health warning' note for implementors rather than a formal 
> rdf core test
> case I don't see that as a problem.

Do you mean basically telling folks not to write rules that infer
things from reifications directly, but only from asserted triples?

If so, then I agree.

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 02:51:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:54 EDT