- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 23:09:22 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> If anyone wants to focus, I'd suggest looking at the stuff on RDF
> entailment. Here's a question that occurred to me, for example.
> Suppose we know that
> aaa rdf:type bbb .
> and also
> bbb rdfs:subClassOf ccc .
> Now, it follows that aaa is in fact a member of the class ccc; but do
> we want to say that this means that
> aaa rdf:type ccc
>
> must be true? If we do, that table of RDF entailment rules would need
> some more entries. Right now it reflects the view that being in a
> class doesn't necessarily mean having that class as a type, only
> having some subclass of it as a type.
so far, I was assuming yes (to your question)
and I thought you expressed that in the second last
entry of your table for RDFS entailment, no?
or (in notation 3)
{ ?x a ?C. ?C rdfs:subClassOf ?D } log:implies { ?x a ?D }.
and similarly for rdfs:subPropertyOf
{ ?s ?p ?o. ?p rdfs:subPropertyOf ?q } log:implies { ?s ?q ?o }.
I just see a typo in entry 2: BBB or bbb
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 17:11:58 UTC