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

Re: [closed] pfps-05 RDFS Closure Rules

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:08:31 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b04bacb30f1dfc8@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
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.

Ah, yes, you are correct.  Thank you for finally drawing my attention 
to the relevant error.

OK, I have modified the statement (22a now) of the RDFS conditions so 
that the ranges and domains of the rdf:_n properties are specified by 
axiomatic triples rather than by conditions stated on the semantic 

I believe this covers all the cases needed, unless you can see any others?

>  > 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.

OK, but I take it that you do not disapprove of the changes 
described, since they arise from a closely related point to the one 
you were making.

>>  >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?

Send me an email?

>  > The changes are mostly
>>  rearrangements rather than substantial changes
>I disagree. 

Maybe it would help if you could indicate the changes which you 
consider to be substantial, so that we can pay them closer attention. 
(I will agree immediately that a large number of mistakes have been 
corrected, many of them found by you.)


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 14:08:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC