- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:33:30 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <494B6A6A.7030109@inf.unibz.it>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > 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. I was only talking from the point of view of the embedding that we need for the RDF and OWL compatibility document, which necessarily uses the translation approach. I agree that for a static ruleset this might be a problem. However, there cannot be a single finite static ruleset, because there are lists of various lengths, and one would need rules for each length that is in the ontology. > > 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. Indeed it is. Practical implementations would use some form of negation. Best, Jos > > Dave -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald Foster
Received on Friday, 19 December 2008 09:33:17 UTC