- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:16:56 +0200
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4AA8C408.4000904@inf.unibz.it>
In RIF-RDF combinations, there is a one-to-one correspondence between rdf:type statements and # statements, and ## statements imply rdfs:subClassOf statements, so: a#b iff a[rdf:type -> b] and a##b implies a[rdf:subClassOf -> b] These correspondences also hold in RIF-OWL Full combinations, since their semantics simply extends the semantics of RIF-RDF combinations. Now, since the semantics of RIF-OWL DL combinations is completely different, these correspondences do not automatically carry over. In fact, in such combinations there is no relationship between # and ## statements in RIF, on the one hand, and typing and subclass statements in OWL DL, on the other. A minimalistic approach was taken in the specification of the semantics of RIF-OWL DL combinations: -OWL class membership statements A(?x) correspond to RIF statements ?x[rdf:type -> A] -property value statements R(?x,?y) correspond to RIF statements ?x[R -> ?y] There are no further correspondences between statements in OWL DL and in RIF. However, some users may expect to be able to use # and ## statements to access OWL class membership; the document currently does not explain that this is not possible. We could do one of three things: 1- leave things as they are, assuming that # and ## are not of interest to users of RIF-OWL DL combinations 2- explain the use of # and ## in the document (this would certainly not be a substantive change, so we should not run into procedural problems) 3- define the semantics of # and ## in RIF-OWL DL combinations in a similar fashion as in RIF-RDF combinations: a one-to-one correspondence between # and OWL class membership statements and implication between ## and OWL subclassing. Technically, this is not a problem. In principle, it would be a substantive change, but we might be able to argue that it was a bug in the specification. I am fine with any of the options. Clearly, option 1 would be least work for me, followed by option 3. Opinions? Best, Jos -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:17:33 UTC