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

Re: incompleteness of rdf-closure

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:33:07 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210610bb0a658e2919@[10.0.100.24]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>The RDF entailment lemma is still not valid in the 6 June 2003 version of
>RDF semantics.

That might well be the case: I have not yet checked the proof in 
detail after the many editorial changes.

>
>For example, the empty RDF graph rdf-entails
>	rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property .
>but this is not part of the rdf-closure of the empty RDF graph.

It is:

rdf:subject rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . (rdfs axiom)
rdfs:range rdfs:domain rdf:Property .  (rdfs axiom)
rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property .  (rdfs2)

The rdf:types of all the rest of the RDFS class and property 
vocabulary can be derived similarly from the domains and ranges of 
domain and range plus the exhaustive listing of the domains and 
ranges of the vocabulary in the RDFS axiomatic triple table.

Clearly, however, the text should provide details of derivations of 
this kind (and many others) rather than merely hinting at them.

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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 12:33:15 GMT

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