- From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:20:42 +0000
- To: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
- 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>
> On 26 Nov 2018, at 14:34, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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 }.
Good.
So that means that if I have a store that has triples like these in (and interprets them properly),
and I ask to SPARQL DESCRIBE with :isLabelOf in it, I may get back RDF with Literals in the subject position?
I can certainly get back literals in places I wasn’t expecting from a SELECT, I think?
>
> 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 Tuesday, 27 November 2018 07:21:19 UTC