W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:35:26 +0100
To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF433A2A25.4CB08DCE-ONC1256CB5.007B6339-C1256CB5.007C2269@agfa.be>


>At 13:19 -0500 1/21/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
>>Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)
>>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:35:07 -0500 (EST)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Peter Patel-Schneider wrote concerning the issue of
>>>  "social meaning":
>>>
>>>  >> > > such RDF meanings can always be be proved and explained back to
>>>  >> > > their roots and those are held responsible for what they
assert!
>>>  >> > > (plus that making information explicit removes it from the
context)
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > Huh?  How can they be *proved*?  What system will do the proving?
>>>  >>
>>>  >> well, I should have said *proof checked* as the
>>>  >> formally sanctioned inference processes in above [*]
>>>  >> should generate/exchange their proofs
>>>  >
>>>  >Take a look at the example in RDF Concepts.   The part that makes the
>>>  >connection is natural language.  How are you going to proof check
that?
>>>
>>>  Is this refering to the Clown example in 2.4.3.1 of the Nov 8 version
of
>>>  the RDF Concepts document?  The initial reference was to something in
>>>  section 4.5 of the concepts document, but I found no example there at
>>>  all.
>>>
>>>  -Evan
>>>
>>
>>You may need to look at the LCC version of the RDF Concepts document.  A
>>pointer is on the RDF Core WG home page.
>>
>>peter
>
>Evan - Peter is right - it is section 4.5 of the Last Call Candidate
>- the pointer to that section is
>
>
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-InteractionExample


oops.. I still have to answer to Peter's question

so given A, B and C

#### A
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix A: <http://insult.example.com/lexicon#> .

A:Clown rdf:type rdfs:Class .
A:Clown rdfs:comment "A class of foolish people, whose pronouncements are
probably ill-considered and not to be taken seriously" .
####

#### B
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix A: <http://insult.example.com/lexicon#> .
@prefix B: <http://AngloSaxon.example.org/lexicon#> .

B:Comic rdfs:subClassOf A:Clown .
####

#### C
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix B: <http://AngloSaxon.example.org/lexicon#> .
@prefix C: <http://skunk.example.org/> .

C:JohnSmith rdf:type B:Comic .
####


one can entail D

#### D
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix A: <http://insult.example.com/lexicon#> .
@prefix C: <http://skunk.example.org/> .

C:JohnSmith rdf:type A:Clown .
A:Clown rdfs:comment "A class of foolish people, whose pronouncements are
probably ill-considered and not to be taken seriously" .
####


and communicate the proof evidence e.g. as

#### E
@prefix A: <http://insult.example.com/lexicon#> .
@prefix B: <http://AngloSaxon.example.org/lexicon#> .
@prefix C: <http://skunk.example.org/> .
@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

<> owl:imports A:, B:, C:, rdfs:.

{
  B:Comic rdfs:subClassOf A:Clown.
  C:JohnSmith a B:Comic} log:implies
{C:JohnSmith rdf:type A:Clown}.
A:Clown rdfs:comment "A class of foolish people, whose pronouncements are
probably ill-considered and not to be taken seriously".
}
####

which can be proof checked
the rdfs:comment remains opaque, we just have the reason

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:36:21 GMT

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