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

Re: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development

From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:44:50 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Peter --

I have been following some of the discussion about RDF entailment, and I 
have a rather naive question please.

Would it be helpful to do the following ?

1) Map the RDF notation into ordinary predicate logic (or datalog, or 
other, as appropriate).
    (Perhaps using something 
like  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/#Lbase )

2) Use the available large body of theory results, theorem provers, datalog 
processors etc to prove and run entailments.

3)  Map back to RDF notation.

4)  If direct processing of RDF entailments in RDF notation, without 
mapping in and out of logical notation is needed,  'compile down'  the 
steps 1, 2, and 3.

Hope this helps.                     -- Adrian

                                    INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
           Your English Business Rules Using Your Oracle Database

Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029

>X-Originating-IP: []
>Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 09:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
>To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
>Subject: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development
>Resent-From: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org> archive/latest/3659
>X-Loop: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>Sender: www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-rdf-comments.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>I am deeply dissatisfied with the way the various entailment rules are
>specified in the RDF Semantics document (currently the version of 31 July).
>I had hoped that the entailment rules would finally end up as complete
>syntactic characterizations of entailment.  This would result in lemmas
>somewhat along the following lines:
>RDF(S) entailment lemma:  S rdf(s)-entails E if and only if there is a
>graph that can be derived from S plus the RDF (and RDFS) axiomatic triples
>by the appliation of the simple entailment rules and RDF entailment rules
>(and RDFS entailment rules) which is a supergraph of E.
>Instead the entailment lemmas are incomplete in a disturbing way.  The RDF
>entailment lemma defers to simple entailment, which makes it an incomplete
>characterization of rdf-entailment.  It would be much better to remove this
>The RDFS entailment lemma also depends on simple entailment, but also has a
>condition that S be rdfs-consistent.  This detracts considerably from the
>utility of the RDFS entailment rules.
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Bell Labs Research
>Lucent Technologies
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2003 10:41:40 UTC

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