- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:44:57 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
[...]
> > > > To do this, we need to be able to refer to sets of
> > > > OWL statements (such as a web page, a database with an OWL
interface,
> > > > etc.) This could probably be called a resource, but that term is
also
> > > > used to describe RDF instances, so for lack of a better term, I
will
> > > > choose the term graph for the time being. Let graph be a function
from a
> > > > URI (URL?) to an RDF/OWL graph. Each OWL graph has a set of
entailments
> > > > that are determined by the model theory. The semantics of a
statement:
> > > >
> > > > A owl:imports B.
> > > >
> > > > are:
> > > >
> > > > if graph(B) |= X then graph(A) |= X
> > > >
> > > > (Note: Here, "|=" is the OWL entailment relation)
>
> Hmm... maybe I didn't read that closely enough the first
> time... I suppose that's a reasonably detailed design after all.
>
> In N3, I could write that as:
>
> { ?A owl:imports ?B.
> ?A log:semantics ?AG.
> ?B log:semantics ?BG.
>
> ?BG log:implies ?X }
> log:implies { ?AG log:implies ?X }.
>
> but I'm not sure cwm would do very much with it. Hm...
> Jos, would Euler exploit that sort of rule in
> the intuitive way?
not as such, but if graph :A has
<> owl:imports :B .
among it's triples
then we should, given nothing, entail the graph
( :A ) log:implies :X .
(unfortunately our web site is in trouble
and all stuff of the last week is gone
and one of them was to use log:implies
more uniformly, so I will test that one
later...)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 19:45:36 UTC