W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: layering (5.3, 5.10): Sardinia compromise?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:21:39 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF10D5E704.58CD9327-ONC1256BD8.0057D144@agfa.be>



[...]

> g0:
> eg:a eg:p eg:b .
>
> This is entirely unproblematic, and there is a wide consensus in the
group
> as to its meaning. Thus it is in W.
> (A syntactic characterisation of those conditions is needed).
>
> Under RDF there are a number of other one triple graphs that are
entailed
>
> g1:
> _:x eg:p eg:b .
>
> g2:
> _:x eg:p _:y .
>
> g3:
> eg:a eg:p _:x .
>
>
> g4:
> eg:p rdf:type rdf:Property .
>
> g5:
> rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property .
>
> Now, g1, g2 and g3 are also unproblematic and so in W, hence g0 is
required
> to owl-entail g1, g2 and g3.
> However, g4 and g5 may be problematic, since the first assumes that
> properties are in the domain of discourse and the second assumes that
> class-membership is in the domain of discourse.

For g4, how could eg:p (used in g0) NOT be in the domain of discourse?
(I want to say anything about anything)
It's (almost) cast in stone in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
as
[[[
       if E contains   then add
rdf1   xxx aaa yyy .   aaa [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] .
]]]
    -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdf_entail

as is for g5
[[[
1. Add the following triple (which is true in any rdf-interpretation):

[rdf:type] [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] .
]]]
    -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdf_entail

Can someone PLEASE, yes PLEASE clarify?

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 12:22:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT