W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2006

is rdfg:subGraphOf deductive or assertive

From: W.H. van Atteveldt <wouter@2at.nl>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:31:34 +0200
Message-ID: <B50FE8BF4F9CF24FB800E28DBB1A2FE026CFDD@gaia.2at.local>
To: <semantic-web@w3.org>

LS,

In Carroll et al 2004, 2005 rdfg:subGraphOf is proposed as a statement to be true iff the set of statements in the subject graph is a subset of the statements in the object graph.

>From an earlier discussion on this list I gather that the semantics is meant purely deductive, ie an inferencer could conclude the truth of the statement from inspecting the two graphs.

For my application, where I would like to execute queries over sets of nested subgraphs, I would like an 'assertive' subgraphof statement, much in the way of the subclassof statement, so that

   xxx  {aaa bbb ccc}
&& yyy? {xxx rdfg:SubGraphOf yyy}
-> yyy  {aaa bbb ccc}

[Taking the condition that the subgraphof statement needs to be in the supergraph from (Guha et al 2004); we can also relax this constraint]

- Was this ever intended by the named graphs interest group? (Why not?)
- Is there any reason not to add this to an inferencer? (Such as sesame?)
- Should different vocabulary from rdfg:SubGraphOf be used?

Thanks!

-- Wouter


o Wouter van Atteveldt
 http://www.cs.vu.nl/~wva 
 PhD Student, Free University Amsterdam
 Department of Artificial Intelligence 
 & Department of Communication Science 
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 12:01:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:40:59 UTC