- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:40:37 +0200
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 07/04/2011 15:31, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider a écrit : > Well, it is possible to derive contradictions in RDFS all by itself, so > the answer to your question is obvious. Then, let us consider RDFS without datatypes. In this case, it is not possible to derive contradictions. However, by adding owl:sameAs, it is possible to derive contradictions even in absence of datatypes. :x owl:sameAs "abc" . :x owl:sameAs "xyz" . or, even better: rdf:type owl:sameAs owl:sameAs . AZ. > > peter > > > From: William Waites<ww@styx.org> > Subject: Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April) > Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:02:31 -0500 > >> Apologies for top-posting, writing from my phone. >> >> I generally agree and have been thinking about the minimum that you have >> to take from owl to be able to derive contradictions using rdfs. The use >> case for this is debugging - detecting modelling errors. I think >> owl:disjointFrom is in the list. SameAs definitely isn't. Despite its >> clear analytical meaning for all practical purposes it means >> RelevantlySimilarTo and should not be taken literally except perhaps in >> some very well defined limited domains... >> >> Cheers > -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13 Lecturer at: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 20 Avenue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 15:41:06 UTC