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@[10.0.100.12]>
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 
domains.

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.)

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 GMT

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