- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
- To: ivan@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, alan.wu@oracle.com
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> Subject: Re: ACTION-178: What is ISSUE-116 (Axiomatic Triples for OWL R) about? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:37:55 +0200 > > > Ian Horrocks wrote: > > Michael (and Ivan), > > I don't have any problem with axiomatic triples in principle. However, > > while they may be (relatively) harmless in principle, I worry that they > > could be extremely damaging from an implementation perspective. > > Presumably, making axiomatic triples be part of OWL RL (Full) would > > mean extending the rule set so that it would generate such > > triples. There could be a very large (perhaps even infinite) number of > > such triples. This might be a serious burden on implementations and lead > > to a significant degradation in performance. > > I CCed Zhe on this in the hope that we can get a view on this from an > > OWL R implementer. > > > > Although not Zhe:-) but I did implement RDFS a while ago using Herman > ter Horst's approach. What it does is for a specific graph was to look > at the rdf:_i properties, looks at the maximum 'i', and use the axioms > (eg, rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty) for that interval > only. That takes care of the infinite issue for each specific graph. Does it? It seems to me that this method will not notice that rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty . RDFS-follows from the empty graph. > Yes, performance might be an issue, Zhe is better positioned to answer > that. > > Ivan peter
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 14:59:28 UTC