- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:14:52 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 18 Mar 2009, at 22:52, Axel Polleres wrote: > Hi Bijan, all, [snip] > In more detail: In RIF itself, there is no such thing as blank nodes. > RDF triples are mapped to slots in RIF. When mapping RDF(S) > entailment to RIF, blanknodes of the entailing graph are skolemized > whereas the entailed graph is mapped to a RIF condition formula such > that blank nodes are mapped to variables. > As for more details, cf. [1] > > * As for OWL: > Can you elaborate a bit more why are blank nodes a problem in OWL? > Per se, some RDF triples with blank nodes can be mapped to a OWL1 > statements already, i.e. > > s p _:b. > > would become: > > SubclassOf(oneOf(s) restriction( p minCardinality(1) ) The problem is that no user expects or wants that behavior and no implementation supports that behavior. The semantics is simply at odds with the market. I mean, prima facie, would *you* expect a BGP s p ?o to return a BNode when querying both the KBs above? (Not to mention that the later KB would return a lot of other stuff as well.) > but that is more problematic with bnodes in subject positions, right? More pressingly is handling cyclic sets of BNodes which would cause the undecidability of entailment (and be a real PITA). This means that very natural RDF graphs cannot be handled by most OWL reasoners even when interpreted as ABoxes. Recall such problems can extend down into RDFS, since, I believe, conjunctive query over RDFS with blank nodes as existentials is NP- complete in data complexity. (For comparison, data complexity of cc over SHIQ is also NP-complete.) > Is that the kind of problems you are referring to or the problem to > define the semantics of a SPARQL query on top of OWL entailment, on > datasets with blank nodes such as co-reference in solution sets, > etc., cf. your part of our ESWC Tutorial [2]? Those too. It's just not clear what to bind variables to in the semi- distinguished case (i.e., when you bind to bnodes). If I have a SomeValuesFrom should it generate a BNode? How many? What if I have a minCardinality 5..should it generate at least 5? It all would be very simple if BNodes were local, slightly shifting, local names. > If you could summarize/review the issues briefly, it might be nice > for the group. This email seems to never have gotten sent :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 11:15:31 UTC