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

Re: Layering on what? was: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:46:13 +0100
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: "<pfps" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ""www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0A23CA98.035DDB3F-ONC1256B73.003F9CAF@agfa.be>

Jonathan,

> > > > >
> > > > > good point, I've added
> > > > >   { ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } .
> > > >
> > > > How would one write the above in RDF?
> >
> > we can surely look to the premis { _:L owl:item _:x } as an RDF graph
> > where the bnodes of that graph (luckily) become universally quantified
> > (reaching to conclusion scope) therefore we write ?L instead of _:L
> > the premis statements are *not* asserted
> > we can also look to { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } as an RDF graph :c, where
> > [ owl:oneOf ?L ] is like a Skolem functional term replacement of a
bnode
> > also the conclusion graph is *not* asserted
> > :p log:implies :c is an RDF statement that *is* asserted
>
> This is precisely my point. The current RDF makes it rather cumbersome to
> represent an _unasserted_ graph. An attempt to translate that into actual
> RDF would expose this. Again, if we are to use RDF, we had better use RDF
as
> it actually exits, and see if it works.
>
> I want to ensure that our syntax will be usable.

Indeed, and also the semantics of course.
Given that such predicates as log:implies 'know'
that they have to look for sets of statements
they could do that either by dereferencing a uri
or by immediate addressing such as N3's { }.
I just don't know how to express the latter in XML.
On the other hand, this is yet just intended as a
means toward machine readable MT entailment rules
(such as http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfs_entail)
and not yet query/rules stuff which is out of scope.

--
Jos
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 06:50:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT