- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:36:37 +0000
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
BTW, I suspect the most common form of RDFS incompleteness is in BNode handling. Full variables semantics is expensive even in RDF and Pd* (non-ground entailment is NP-complete). When I was working with some folks trying to do RDFS on a rules system, the first ignored thing is the BNode entailment rules ;) (I would think that ground graphs on the rhs would be sufficient to avoid NP completeness. OTOH, if you treat BNodes as names instead of variables, then all graphs are effectively ground.) For an excellent paper on RDFS reasoning in the ground setting see: http://www2.ing.puc.cl/~jperez/papers/minimal-rdf-camera-ready-ext.pdf Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2008 17:34:45 UTC