- From: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:34:04 +0000
- To: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Austin Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>, Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
> For example, what does
> { :isLabelOf owl:inverseOf rdfs:label . }
> actually cause/mean or whatever?
I think it means:
{ ?A owl:inverseOf ?B. ?C ?B ?D } => { ?D ?A ?C }.
{ ?A owl:inverseOf ?B } => { ?B owl:inverseOf ?A }.
A meta-observation about rules. This might be an unusual point of view, but it
seems to me that the meaning of statements in a language like RDF is very closely
tied to the inference rules that you choose involving them. There is nothing that
says you must use all available rules. But the set of rules that you choose
determines what conclusions get drawn. Rules can provide context in this way.
So if you wanted to write,
:alice :bornIn “May”.
there is a rule-set under which that makes sense and useful conclusions can
be drawn, e.g.,
“May” a :Month.
There are also rule-sets where it doesn’t make sense and nonsense conclusions
are drawn. But that’s a choice about how to interpret the statements.
Best wishes,
-w
Received on Monday, 26 November 2018 14:34:32 UTC