W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A CompatibilityGuide

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:21:13 -0500
To: conen@gmx.de
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011119112113I.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Wolfram Conen <conen@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A CompatibilityGuide
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:57:18 +0100

> Hello Peter!
> 
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > 
> > My view of this paper is that it introduces a translation of the new RDF(S)
> > model theory into Horn rules with stratified negation and then complains
> > about characteristics of the result.  But are these complaints about the
> > new model theory or about the translation?
> > 
> 
> Neither (by the way: note that the translation of the RDF(S) model
> theory into the eighteen datalog rules does not require stratification,
> though). 

Yes, stratification is not needed, it is just that that is how you describe
the formalism used.  Some form of negation, however, is used.  If you want
to stay in the quasi-Horn arena, then you need to state which form of
negation is being used.

> It suggests that it might be reasonable to complain about the
> loss of expressivity due to the decision of the RDF Core WG with respect
> to domain/range constraints (ie, allowing to deduce types).

This is a valid criticism.  Different parties can take different stands on
this issue.

The criticism of treatment of literals, on the other hand, appear to be
much more of a criticism of the translation, but are couched as a criticism
of the model theory.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 11:22:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT