W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: need to determine what RDF is

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:14:52 -0700
Message-ID: <002301c207f5$21e605a0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> Suppose an agent is given
>   <ex:Student> <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:Person> .
>   <ex:John> <rdf:type> <ex:Student> .
>   <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdf:type> <rdf:Property> .
>   <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:Class> .
>   <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Class> .
>   <rdfs:Class> <rdf:type> <rdfs:Class> .
> and responds that it entails
>   <ex:John> <rdf:type> <ex:Person> .
> This agent is not an RDF reasoner (is not doing RDF).  Its reasoning is
> unsound in RDF.  The agent may be an RDFS reasoner, but it is not doing
> RDF.

I agree, given *only* the assertions in the rdf namespace, there is no way
that an automated agent *could* arrive at that entailment.  But given the
logical interpretation of certain rdfs:comments, it certainly can be
entailed.   I seems to me that any automated agent that attempts to arrive
at conclusions about assertions, without knowing any rules that apply to its
predicate, would always be going beyond the data given.   Don't we all know
that?  Why is this important to us now?

A mentograph of the example:

Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:21:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:18 UTC