- From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:38:18 +0200
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
In addition, rows 3-5 in the table did not account for inverse properties; now they do. Again, this is a bug-fix. Cheers, Jos On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, there was the expression > trO(X, ?yn) > missing from row 3, second column. I added it. > > Best, Jos > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com> wrote: >> Nevermind. I found out that the new row 28 is redundant with row 3, so >> there was actually no problem. >> It's been too long since I wrote the original embedding... >> >> Cheers, Jos >> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Axel has found an omission in the embedding of RIF-OWL2RL combinations >>> into RIF [1]. In particular, the embedding of simple statements >>> SubClassOf(A B) >>> where A and B are class, was not considered. I corrected the problem >>> by adding the new row 28 to the table in section 9.2.2.2 of SWC. >>> I would argue that this is not a substantive change, but rather a >>> bug-fix: the embedding does not work without the new row 28 in the >>> table. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Jos >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_RIF-OWL_2_RL_Combinations >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_Normalized_OWL_2_RL >>> >>> -- >>> Jos de Bruijn >>> Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ >>> LinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jos de Bruijn >> Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ >> LinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn >> > > > > -- > Jos de Bruijn > Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ > LinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn > -- Jos de Bruijn Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ LinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 12:02:14 UTC