W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Semantics of rdfs:subPropertyOf

From: Reinhold Klapsing <Reinhold.Klapsing@uni-essen.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:47:19 +0100
Message-ID: <3A339777.D9534783@uni-essen.de>
To: Michel Klein <Michel.Klein@cs.vu.nl>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Michel Klein wrote:
> 
> "McBride, Brian" wrote:
> >
> > > - Second, as [1] pointed out, inheritance of *values* creates
> > > problems in
> > >   case of multiple inheritance. If a property has multiple
> > > subproperties
> > >   that are attached to the same resource, it is not clear
> > > what value the
> > >   common superproperty will have.
> >
> > I thought that issue had been resolved earlier in:
> >
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0129.html
> >
> > I had assumed the interpretation was that if resource R has to properties
> > sp1 with value v1 and sp2  with value v2, where sp1 and sp2 are both
> > subproperties of p, then has R has two properties P, one with value v1 and
> > the other with value v2.
> 
> We agree with this interpretation of the current RDFS specification, but
> our main concern is that the inheritance of *values* will make the reasoning
> nonmonotonic. It seems to us that this is not desirable for a basic technique
> like RDFS. All techniques that will build upon it, will have to deal with
> these problems.
> 
> If the definition of subPropertyOf is changed according to our proposal
> (only inheritance of domain and range), this problem does not exist.
> 
> > I couldn't find any references to this problem at the uri you gave.  Which
> > section is it in.

There exist three versions of the paper:

1) http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdf/logical_interpretation/ 
   (11-October-2000 - Version 1.2 - which is the latest version) 
   This version also is currently under public review in the 
   Semantic Web (SEWEB) area of the Electronic
   Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI)  - see
   http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/epa/cis/2000/013/tcover.html
2) http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdf/logical_interpretation_v11/
   (29-September-2000 - Version: 1.1)
3) http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdf/logical_interpretation_v10/
   (26-August-2000 - Version: 1.0)

> 
> It was in the end of section 3.2.4, but the authors removed that passage
> in the latest version [1].

Thatīs right, our comment was in the first version only.
Our intention with this paper was to cover
the precise semantics of the main concepts of RDF and RDFS.
We avoided to comment the suitability of the concepts 
provided by RDF and RDFS. After receiving Brianīs argumentation (see -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0129.html)
we eliminated the comment from Section 3.2.4 of version 1.0 of the paper. 

Regards, 

Reinhold and Wolfram
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2000 09:37:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:37 GMT