W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: [closed] pfps-05 RDFS Closure Rules

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:40:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030422.134041.121163389.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-05 RDFS Closure Rules
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:49:20 -0500

[...]


> >I believe that it is still not appropriate because I believe that
> >the intent in RDFS is that container membership properties can be applied
> >to non-containers.
> 
> That is not my understanding. I will refer this to the WG for 
> confirmation one way or the other. Can you document this intent?

The recent messages about rdf:li in one of the RDF mailing lists should
suffice.  There are numerous other such messages.

[...]

> >Third, the closure rules are unable to infer any rdfs:domain or rdfs:range
> >triples.  It thus appears to me that the RDFS closure procedure is still
> >incomplete as it will not include triples of the form
> >
> >	rdf:_n rdfs:range xx .
> >
> >(for whatever xx is deemed to be appropriate).
> 
> I do not think this is an error in the rules. The domains and ranges 
> for all the properties in the whole RDFS vocabulary are now included 
> in the axiomatic triples table explicitly, and no other domains and 
> range statements can be concluded using the RDFS semantic conditions 
> (except possibly by inference paths involving subPropertyOf, which 
> are covered by the rules).

I don't see any domain or range triples for the rdf:_n properties in the
current version (22) of this table. 

> However, I have re-phrased the text immediately after the statement 
> of the lemma ('captured'/justify) and added a sentence to emphasize 
> that the entailment lemma as stated would not generalize to the case 
> where the strengthened domain and range conditions apply and the 
> modified rule set with rules 2a, 3a 4a' and 4b' are used.

This is not about strengthened domain and range conditions.  It is instead
about the domains and ranges that are directly specified in the RDFS
semantic conditions.

> >I note also that there are many changes to the RDF Semantics.  These
> >changes may have uncovered previously unnoticed issues and may themselves
> >have issues.
> 
> If you have any issues, please raise them. 

How should this be done?  The last-call comment period has ended.

> The changes are mostly 
> rearrangements rather than substantial changes

I disagree.  

> - some conditions on 
> the RDF vocabulary have been moved back from RDFS to RDF - and of 
> course there may be typos or omissions arising from those editorial 
> changes to the document.

> Pat

peter
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 13:40:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT