- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:43:04 -0500
- To: "'Joshua Tauberer'" <tauberer@for.net>
- Cc: "'SWIG'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Tauberer [mailto:tauberer@for.net] > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:09 AM > To: Geoff Chappell > Cc: 'SWIG' > Subject: Re: Provenance as a first-class citizen > > Geoff Chappell wrote: > > :Sky [rdfs:subPropertyOf :hasColor; :says :Geoff] :Blue. > > If you change rdfs:subPropertyOf to some other predicate that you define > as sort of subtracting from the meaning of the original predicate, Yeah, I think you're right. When using with existing vocabs, the subprop inference could be too strong. Probably something like rdfs:superPropertyOf would be better (or ex:modifiesProperty). That'd give you more control over the inference -- e.g. if a subprop rule looks like this: infer {?b ?x ?y} from {[rdfs:subPropertyOf] ?a ?b} and {?a ?x ?y}; a rule for superprop might be: infer {?b ?x ?y} from {[rdfs:superPropertyOf] ?a ?b} and {?a ?x ?y}; and {[ex:sourceOf] ?a ?src} and {[rdf:type] ?src [ex:TrustedSource]} or whatever the relevant context is.... > then > you can do it without the problems of my last email. For instance, use > :claimType instead and define (X :claimType Y) to mean "X asserts the > same thing as Y, except within the context of some claim", then it works > fine. :claimType rdfs:subPropertyOf [owl:inverseOf rdfs:subPropertyOf] -Geoff
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 17:43:34 UTC