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

Re: need to determine what RDF is

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:28:50 -0400
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020530122850H.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:14:52 -0700

> 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.   

Yes, but my point is that this logical interpretation is *not* RDF
entailment.  It is, instead, RDFS entailment.

> 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?

Well, because some people seem to think that RDF encompasses the logical
interpretation of such comments.


> Seth Russell

peter
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:29:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT