- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:54:39 +0100
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4987335F.5040007@inf.unibz.it>
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-profiles-20081202/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules Jos de Bruijn wrote: > It is impossible to completely coreify the embedding of OWL 2 RL > combinations, because there is equality in that language. A naïve > axiomatization such as use of sameAs (as in [1]) is not sufficient, > because in combinations one can use arbitrary predicates. > > For example, if the ontology says: > FunctionalProperty(p) > ClassAssertion(C a) > PropertyAssertion(p e a) > PropertyAssertion(p e b) > > With the naïve sameAs axiomatization we can derive > a[sameAs -> b] and b[rdf:type -> C] > > However, if we add the RIF fact > q(a) > > we cannot derive q(b) unless we have a full-blown axiomatization of > equality (which is doable because there are no function symbols in > Core). This would, however, clearly defeat the purpose of not having > equality in Core. > > So, either (a) we say that you effectively leave Core when going for OWL > 2 RL or (b) we provide an embedding of an equality-free subset. > I would be in favor of (a), because I do not want to define yet another > OWL subset; I think the whole web of semantic Web languages is already > complicated enough. > > > Best, Jos > -- 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 Monday, 2 February 2009 17:54:48 UTC