W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > March 2003

RE: RDF and OWL rules

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:27:06 -0500
To: "'Jos De_Roo'" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006301c2f7a2$64a5df30$835ec6d1@GSCLAPTOP>

Jos,

I ended up re-ordering by owl rules to match your order and gave them
the same names as yours (my rdfs rules were already in the same order -
I also gave them the same names also). 

I seem to have mostly a subset of your rules - i.e. the rules I have
(with the exception of a couple) correspond to rules that you have. I
don't have a number that you have:

rule3r2
rule5e2, rule5e2
rule7p1, rule7p2, rule7p3
rule8s1, rule8s2, rule8s3, rule8s6
rule9o1, rule9i2, rule9u1, rule9f2, rule9i2
rule10c1, rule10c2, rule10c3, rule10c4, rule10r1, rule10a1

Rules that you don't seem to have (but may have been derivable by other
means?):

someValuesFrom, owl:equivalentClass, owl:complementOf

A few notes:

- seems like either rule4p1 or rule4p2 is necessary, but not both
(assuming equivalentProperty is stated as symmetric)
- rule8s6 seems unnecessary (derivable by other rules)
- what are the semantics of math:proofCount? Are your cardinality
inconsistency rules making a unique names assumption?
- Seems that most inconsistencies (with exception of datatype violations
and some cardinality issues) stem from something being both the sameAs
and differentFrom something else or a class being both a subClassOf and
disjointWith/complementOf another class. How does neg:type fit in?

Looks promising - the commonality of results created from separate
efforts is a good sign. I'm going to bring my rules up to speed with
yours before publishing them. Then I'll compare my test results with
yours and try to tackle some of the failing cases.

Regards,

Geoff Chappell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jos De_Roo
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:55 PM
> To: geoff@sover.net
> Cc: Jos De_Roo; 'RDF Rules'
> Subject: RE: RDF and OWL rules
> 
> 
> 
> Did a quick run (have to leave in 4 hours to Munich
> and I still have to find some sleep as well...) for
> the RDFS and OWL testcases. A P+ means that we found
> a proof for a positive entailment test whereas a NP+
> means that we have no proof found (we are just running
> the positive entailment tests and the inconsistency
> tests as we have trouble with negation if it's not
> explicitly stated as "negation by declaration" as
> Guido Naudts would say and similarly, I havent't
> found a satisfactory way to prove consistency tests)
> 
> [[[
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt>.log:semantics
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-
> representation/Manifest.rdf#test004>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-
> representation/Manifest.rdf#test003>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-
> representation/Manifest.rdf#test002>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-
> subClassOf/Manifest.rdf#test001>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-
> subPropertyOf/Manifest.rdf#test001>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test010>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test008>
> 
> P+
>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#rang
e-
> clash>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-
> range/Manifest.rdf#conjunction-test>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-between-
> datatypes>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
>
tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-ignored-for-numeric-types-
3>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
>
tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-ignored-for-numeric-types-
2>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
>
tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-ignored-for-numeric-types-
1>
> 
> P+
>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#non-
> well-formed-literal-1>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
>
tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-2>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
>
tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-1>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-
> semantics/Manifest.rdf#test001>
> 
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/AllDifferent/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/allValuesFrom/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest004#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest005#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest006#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/complementOf/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/differentFrom/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/differentFrom/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/disjointWith/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/disjointWith/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/distinctMembers/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest004#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest006#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest007#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest004#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest005#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest006#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest004#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest005#test>
NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I4.6/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I4.6/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.1/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/Manifest002#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/Manifest004#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/Manifest006#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest004#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest001#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest003#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest004#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest006#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest008#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest009#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest010#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest011#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest002#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest003#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest004#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/Manifest001#test> P+
>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest001#tes
t>
> P+
>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest002#tes
t>
> P+
>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest003#tes
t>
> P+
>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest004#tes
t>
> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/inverseOf/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/Manifest203#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Nothing/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Nothing/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest002#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest003#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest004#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/someValuesFrom/Manifest001#test> NP+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/SymmetricProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/Manifest001#test> P+
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/Manifest002#test> P+
> ]]]
> 
> which is 73/92 or 79.3% success rate
> and the proofs can for instance be found in
> http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/etc5-proof.n3
> 
> I'm looking forward to have an in depth look at your
> owl.rql and it seems that you have already put a lot
> of effort in that (at least we needed many iterations
> for owl-rules, the cvs version is 1.134 and I'm still
> trying...)
> 
> Well, also the rule numbering is also not an easy job ;-)
> 
> ...Together "We can work it out"
> 
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
> 
> 
>                     "Geoff
>                     Chappell"            To:     Jos
> De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
>                     <geoff@sover.n       cc:     "'RDF Rules'"
<www-rdf-
> rules@w3.org>
>                     et>                  Subject:     RE: RDF and OWL
> rules
> 
>                     2003-03-30
>                     11:01 PM
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 11:31:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:10 GMT