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

Re: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030815.094436.12009166.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

I would object to the situation *as it now stands*.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider



From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:58:19 +0100

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 
> > 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 am currently recording your disatisfaction as not accepting closure of 
> issues pfps-04 and pfps-05:
> 
> http://www.w3.http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
> http://www.w3.http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05
> 
> As I understand things however, your objection is not that the closure 
> rules are wrong as stated, but that you feel they are in some sense 
> inadequate.  Is that correct?
> 
> Can you also clarify whether you would *object* to the drafts moving to 
> the next stage in the rec track with the current closure rules, or 
> whether you could in fact "live with" the current closure rules, even 
> though you would strongly prefer them to be modified.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> > 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
> > incompleteness. 
> > 
> > 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 Friday, 15 August 2003 09:46:10 GMT

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