- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:32:15 -0600
- 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 >triple > 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. 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 Friday, 7 November 2003 11:32:17 UTC