Re: [TF-ENT] RDFS entailment regime proposal

On 9/28/09 7:28 AM, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> [..] The only additional answers from RDFS compared to RDF are some
>>> axiomatic
>>> triples, plus any IRI used as a property will end up as part of an answer to
>>> ?p
>>> rdf:type rdf:Property.

> Hm, I don't think I get your point here. The sentence you cite is just
> an explanation of why we do only provide an RDFS entailment regime and
> not also an RDF entailment regime. Should I rephrase that?

Oh, I see.  I mist that context.

>>> .. if μ(v) is a blank node, then μ(v) occurs in the scoping graph SG

>> So, is the general intuition here that answers where subject terms are Blank
>> nodes must "refer" to a priori blank nodes in the SG?
 
> under the restriction that I propose you would get { ?x-><ex:c> } and
> that is it. None of the blank nodes occured in the input, so they can
> be used in the derivation of consequences, but they will now show up
> in answers. I that ok to you or do you have an alternative proposal?

That's ok to me.

>> Well, isn't monotonic usually a characteristic of an entailment
>> relationship? In this case it is not the RDFS entailment relationship that
>> is monotonic (in the sense of the word I'm used to, anyways), but rather
>> there is a difference in answers based on whether or not pattern
>> substitutions involve terms in some combination of either the signature of
>> the SG or the query.

> ASK { rdf:_1 rdf:type rdf:property }
> against the empty graph, I would get true since this is an axiomatic
> triple and rdf:_1 occurs in the signature of the query.
 
Right., but the answers here come with a caveat (i.e., they were under an
entailment regime with possibly unsafe queries)

> If I then go on to ask
> SELECT ?x WHERE { ?x rdf:type rdf:property }
> again against the empty graph, I get an empty answer set. That is not
> what I expect. I just learned that the triple rdf:_1 rdf:type
> rdf:property is entailed (ASK query), but then I get no answer when I
> replace rdf:_1 with a variable. That is what happens under the current
> definition and that is not nice.

Yes, on some level it is definitely not nice.  I just wonder how liable can
the system be given the caveat that already comes with the previous answer.

-- Chimezie


===================================

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and
locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 15:05:21 UTC