Re: completeness

From: "Giorgos Stoilos" <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Subject: RE: completeness
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:39:37 +0200

> Hello,
> 
> See small comment inline.

[...]

> > > So pD*sv might be a little too much as a foundation for OWL-Prime.
> > 
> > Probably, as I believe that rule application in pD*sv is non-terminating.
> > 
> > Consider, for example,
> > 
> > (1)	re owl:someValuesFrom re .
> > (2)	re owl:onProperty p .
> > (3-0)	o1 rdf:type re .
> > 
> > Then from (1,2,3-0) rule rdf-svx produces a new b-node _:b1 with
> > 
> > (3-1)	_:b1 rdf:type re .
> > (4-1)	o1 p _:b1 .
> > 
> > Then from (1,2,3-1) rule rdf-svx produces a new b-node b2 with
> > 
> > (3-2)	_:b2 rdf:type re .
> > (4-2)	_:b1 p _:b2 .
> > 
> 
> I guess you could always use some blocking condition to stop the algorithm
> and then imply that 
> 
> _:b1 p _:b1
> 
> ...right?

It is not certain that a blocking condition is possible.  I do not know
of any known blocking condition.   Any blocking condition might have to
be careful about things like

	owl:someValuesFrom owl:sameAs owl:allValuesFrom

Note: I have not thought much about the pD* treatment of owl:sameAs as
it relates to messing with the OWL vocabulary.

> > And so on.   This inference chain also exists for partial pD*sv
> > closures.

[...]

peter

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 11:11:18 UTC