- From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:03:28 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOMwk6xL32Fo7zd4A+e8Y0xNiRGuiAiWR8COACheYmmjO1BnCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Ivan, Thanks for the clarification! We are removing "class union" constructs from domain of all object properties in PROV-O. Thanks. Best, Satya On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 21:45 , Satya Sahoo wrote: > > [snip] > > > > ie, using a union of classes as part of the domain is not allowed. The > rules also express this. And, although a layperson in terms of hard core > logic, I can see why: if a resource is the subject of that property, a > simple rule engine _cannot_ find out which of the constituents of the union > it belongs to. Ie, it cannot make any intelligent deduction. > > > > Can you please clarify the above point - reasoners do consistency check > (class with no possible instance) and classification (identify inferred > sub/super class), the above example of inferring class membership seems to > be a RDFS entailment. > > Correct. Reasoners, say, DL reasoners do this stuff, but those are > inferences on the classes themselves. However, again from my non-logician > perspective, OWL 2 RL concentrates more on the instance data, on the > inferences drawn on individuals. The OWL 2 RL Rules do that, and they do it > in a way that they can be easily implemented either directed or through > some rule engine. And that is where the problem comes in. > > If I have > > provo:hadTemporalEngine rdfs:domain A . > > then the rules can be used for the inference : > > x provo:hadTemporalEngine y . => x rdf:type A . > > but if I have > > provo:hadTemporalEngine rdfs:domain [ owl:union ( A,B,C) ] . > > then, again in the case of > > x provo:hadTemporalEngine y . => x rdf:type A . > > there is no rule that would help me to make any kind of statement on the > type of 'x' v.a.v. A, B, or C. In other words, if I simply use the OWL 2 RL > Rules, that domain statement does not provide any information that the > reasoner could exploit on the data. > > I hope this is clearer (and that I am right:-) > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 22:03:59 UTC