Re: [OWL compatibility] #, ## in OWL compatibility

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:27:39 -0400
Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> So returning to the point, you would need to restrict the # relation in RIF/OWL 
> combinations further than they are in RIF/RDFS, and that's all? 

Yes.

> What's the restriction?

See the 2nd par in
http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#Syntax_of_RIF-OWL_Combinations

A similar restriction should be imposed on a#b and b##c.
That is, b,c must be constants.

michael


> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:01:51 +0200
> > Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> > 
> >>>>>> Also, doesn't 
> >>>>>> BLD allow the range and domain of # to be much larger than OWL-DL does for type?  
> >>>>> That has already been taken care of by the restrictions imposed by RIF/OWL-DL
> >>>>> combo.  
> >>>> Such restrictions are currently not there, but they could be added.
> >>> My understanding is that the restrictions are there
> >>> for ...[rdfs:subclassOf->...] and we simply need to re-use them for ##.
> >> Well, not for subclassof (this plays no role in RIF-OWL DL
> >> compatibility), but it is there for rdf:type.
> > 
> > yes. I keep sliding into that rdfs:subclassOf heresy :-)
> > 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 19:37:06 UTC