- From: Hanscools <hanscools@intergga.ch>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 02:45:38 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Cc: Hans Cools <hanscools@intergga.ch>
Hello,
I came across a system implementing Semantic Web technology and
replacing rdfs:domain and rdfs:range by its own constraints.
Can this still be considered W3C compliant?
The (anonymized) declaration:
x:propertyX a owl:ObjectProperty. # replacing rdfs:domain
x:propertyY a owl:ObjectProperty. # replacing rdfs:range
(Note: without any other semantics, e.g.
x:propertyX rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:domain.)
Reason for doing this: 'insufficient control over type of subject and
object', because:
* implementation of the RDF/S model theory for rdfs:domain and
rdfs:range with e.g. N3 rules:
{?P rdfs:domain ?DC. ?x ?P ?y} => {?x a ?DC}.
{?P rdfs:range ?RC. ?x ?P ?y} => {?y a ?RC}.
* and example with mock-up ontologies and data (without prefix headers):
Ontologies:
y:Rock a rdfs:Class.
z:Human a rdfs:Class.
z:BiologicalSex a rdfs:Class.
z:hasBiologicalSex
a owl:ObjectProperty;
rdfs:domain z:Human;
rdfs:range z:BiologicalSex.
Data:
ex:rock1
a y:Rock;
z:hasBiologicalSex z:female.
* leads to following inferences with a machine reasoner using the above
rules:
ex:rock1 a z:Human. # not OK => 'One can state and infer the wrong
things.'
z:female a z:BiologicalSex. # OK
Note: problem can be solved by declaring:
z:Human owl:disjointWith y:Rock. # For the example above this will
result in a conclusion: false.
Kind regards,
Hans
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2017 01:46:03 UTC