- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:59:40 +0100
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <494BB6DC.2050500@inf.unibz.it>
I was thinking a bit more about the problem of the negative guards and the static rule set we wish to provide for OWL RL. We established that without negative guards, we cannot provide a finite static ruleset, because the rules would depend on the literals actually being used in the ontology. Now, a property of the OWL 2 language is that there is a strict separation between the object and data domains, both in the syntax and the semantics. For example, it is not possible to assert that an IRI is a member of a datatype, nor is it possible to assert equality between and IRI and a concrete data value. Most importantly, the values of object properties can only be IRIs and the values of data properties can only be literals. And, in OWL 2 RL we only need to take individuals into account that are explicitly represented using IRI or literals. Therefore, a statement like t[rdf:type -> DT], where DT is a datatype can never be derived if t is not a literal. Consequently, we only need to do type checking of the form at the bottom of section 4.4.2 of [1] for literal values. So, I believe that a restricted form kind of negative guard, namely one that is restricted to the domain of literals (e.g., isNonIntegerLiteral), is sufficient for this static ruleset. Best, Jos [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL -- 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 14:59:25 UTC