Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

Well "RDFS entailment" is certainly a term that can be used, but I don't think 
that "graph entailment" is defined in the RDF spec.

peter


On 11/12/2014 11:09 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-11-12 15:13-0800]
>> On 11/12/2014 02:31 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/13/14, 8:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> RDFS is part of the RDF spec, so we do not have to go beyond the RDF spec to
>>>> get the benefits of RDFS.
>>>
>>> Which benefits do you mean? Inferencing?
>>>
>>> (In general I admit I often find your statements enigmatic. It's often unclear
>>> to me what solution you are proposing).
>>
>> Well, then I'm having the effect I want.
>>
>> At this point I'm not advocating or even proposing a solution.  I
>> am, however, trying to tease out just what others are advocating or
>> proposing and pointing out statements that are not correct.
>>
>> The statement here was that RDFS is not part of the RDF spec.
>> That's not true.  To get the benefits of RDFS (any maybe I should
>> have said, if any) you don't need to go beyond the RDF spec.
>
> We need (relatively non-controversial) labels to say that we do or do
> not expect a shape definition to include RDFS inferencing (not
> addressing fragments thereof at this point). If we are careful not to
> say "RDF spec" can we use "graph entailment" and "RDFS entailment"?
>
>
>> I do also believe that RDFS has benefits, namely its notions of a
>> class and property hierarchy and domains and ranges on properties.
>> (I'm not saying that RDFS is the best ontology language, or even a
>> very good one, but RDFS does provide some interesting capabilities.)
>>
>>
>>> Holger
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:13:08 UTC