RE: Superfluous rules in OWL 2 RL spec

Hello,

I agree that these rules are redundant; however, let me please explain why I introduced them.

The rules from all tables apart from Table 9 work at the instance level, and they are relevant to the proof of Theorem 1. In other
words, these rules make sure that all the consequences corresponding to ABox assertions are derived in a sound and complete way.

The rules in Table 9, however, have been introduced in order to define the semantics of the schema vocabulary. Unlike the previous
rules, there is no notion of completeness for these.

Because of that, I'd be inclined to leave Table 7 unchanged, unless someone strongly objects to it. Clearly, an OWL 2 RL/RDF
implementation can simply ditch these rules if it also includes the ones from Table 9.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rinke Hoekstra
> Sent: 21 November 2008 14:09
> To: OWL 2
> Subject: Superfluous rules in OWL 2 RL spec
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It seems to me that rules cax-eqc1 and cax-eqc2 in Table 7 are
> superfluous given the cax-sco rule in the same table, and scm-eqc in
> Table 9.
> 
> See the rules below.
> 
> -Rinke
> 
> 
> scm-eqc
> IF
>    T(?c1, owl:equivalentClass, ?c2)
> THEN
>    T(?c1, rdfs:subClassOf, ?c2)
>    T(?c2, rdfs:subClassOf, ?c1)
> 
> cax-sco
> IF
>    T(?c1, rdfs:subClassOf, ?c2)
>    T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)
> THEN
>    T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)
> 
> cax-eqc1
> IF
>    T(?c1, owl:equivalentClass, ?c2)
>    T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)
> THEN
>    T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)
> 
> cax-eqc2
> IF
>    T(?c1, owl:equivalentClass, ?c2)
>    T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)
> THEN
>    T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
> 
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
> 
> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 17:24:05 UTC