Re: ACTION-178: What is ISSUE-116 (Axiomatic Triples for OWL R) about?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ACTION-178: What is ISSUE-116 (Axiomatic Triples for OWL R) about?
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:22:40 -0400

> On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> > Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >> On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:
> >>> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is the assumption that in OWL R/Full that the only way in which one
> >>>> determine entailments is to forward chain rules and then look in
> >>>> the resultant triples for it?
> >>>
> >>> It's not an "execution semantics". Instead, there has to *exist* a
> >>> finite sequence of rule applications, which leads from the LHS to the RHS
> >>> (or an upper graph of the RHS).
> >> OK. I'm then confused by Ian's comment about generating infinite
> >> numbers of triples:
> >
> > But his comment _was_ justified. In
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP
> >
> > the number of axiomatic triples is infinite indeed, due to the rdf:_i
> > terms. Herman ter Horst's trick of keeping it finite for a specific
> > graph tries to get around that problem and thereby making it possible to
> > do, eg, a forward chaining on a specific graph (with the caveat that
> > PFPS just referred to in another mail:-(
> 
> Yes, but my question to Michael was to this point.  From what he says I
> don't see that the theoretical existence of an infinite number of
> triples necessitates their materialization by forward chaining. There
> are other methods of using rules.
> 
> -Alan

Which of the other methods of using rules are germane to this
discussion?

peter

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 15:32:36 UTC