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

Re: RDF semantics: problems with entailment rules rdfs5 and rdfs9

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:32:15 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f71bbd172125249@[]>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>Two rdfs entailment rules do not seem to be stated
>in sufficient generality.
>This is indicated by the following two counterexamples
>to the rdfs entailment lemma.
>Example: graph G consists of triples
>   x subPropertyOf y
>   y subPropertyOf z
>where x y and z are blank nodes.
>In this case the semantics shows that
>G rdfs-entails the triple
>   x subPropertyOf z
>However this triple is not derived by rule rdfs5,
>since this rule requires x y and z to be URIs.
>A similar problem occurs with rule rdfs9.
>Example: graph H consists of triples
>   x subClassOf y
>   z type x
>where z is a blank node.
>According to the semantics, H rdfs-entails the
>   z type y
>This triple is however not derived by rule rdfs9
>since this rule requires z to be a URI.

You are right, of course. These rules should be stated so as to apply 
to blank nodes as well as URIs.  I will make this change.


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 Friday, 7 November 2003 11:32:17 UTC

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