- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:18:33 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_Normalized_OWL_2_RL > > I did not yet check it thoroughly, but I think the embedding is already > close to a version that works. > > The embedding does not use negative guards. Rather, it axiomatizes the > behavior through a number of constraints. For example, to ensure that > values that are not in the value space of a particular datatype do not > end up in its class extension, we use formulas: > > ("a"="b" :- tr(s^^u)[rdf:type -> u']) for every well-typed literal s^^u > and datatype identifier u' in V such that L2V(D(u))(s) is not in the > value space of u'. > > This is analogous to the dt-not-type rule in Table 8 of the OWL 2 RL > rules in [1]. Makes sense. > This confirms my suspicion that RDF and OWL compatibility does not > require negative guards. > As far as I'm concerned we can get rid of them. In a theoretical but not necessarily in a practical sense. First it would require us to only provide the translation approach to OWL 2 RL implementation and we would be unable to publish a static RIF rule set. That might be acceptable but the last discussion on this came to the opposite conclusion. Second, if I understand correctly the above approach requires NDT separate type checking rule for *each* literal in the ontology (where NDT is the number of datatypes supported). For realistic scales of ontology that sounds like an unrealistic number of rules. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 18:19:26 UTC