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

Well, that's just the syntax. We would also need to introduce conditions
in the definition of common-RIF-OWL DL-interpretation [1] analogous to
conditions 7 and 8 in the definition of common-RIF-RDF-interpretation [2].


Cheers, Jos

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Semantics_of_RIF-OWL_DL_Combinations
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Common_RIF-RDF_Interpretations

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> 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 :-)
>>>

-- 
                         debruijn@inf.unibz.it
Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/