W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:35:54 +0000
Message-ID: <56CC360A.9050605@ninebynine.org>
To: ross.horne@gmail.com, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 23/02/2016 09:24, Ross Horne wrote:
> My follow up question is: whether anyone knows whether the more
> accommodating inference, as implied by Bioportal, was ever discussed during
> the RDFS standardisation process; and if so, why the more restrictive
> definition for multiple domains and ranges was chosen.
>
> I suspect this question has a simple explanation in model theory, which is
> why I also copy Pat.
>

I recall this was discussed in the 2000-2004 RDF working group, or at least 
among some members of the working group at that time.

A concern here is for logical monotonicity - the introduction of new knowledge 
cannot invalidate existing knowledge, otherwise how can one know for sure that 
anything you think you know is actually true in a context that invokes 
open-world semantics?

There are alternative models (e.g. default reasoning), but in order to draw firm 
confusions they require assuming that one has a complete set of assertions (i.e. 
no more can be added).

Also from the 2000-2004 RDF working group (which ran in parallel with the first 
OWL working group), the RDF list construct (aka rdf:parseType="Collection") was 
introduced so that (among other things) OWL could make closed assertions, such 
as owl:unionOf (see 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#SetOperators).

#g
--
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 10:36:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:50 UTC