- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:58:11 +0200
- To: "Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>> this sounds like a union... >>>> and I don't see that as explained in >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0151.html >>>> and as I still think we should have >>>> rdfd:range rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range . >>> >>> I would not recommend that. That would re-introduce all the >>> range-inheritance problems assocaited with datatyping. The basic idea >>> of the current proposal is to keep range-assignment (ie rdfs:Range) >>> and datatyping (rdfd:Range) quite separate, so you can have either >>> one without the other (or both if you choose to). That is the only >>> way I can see to allow the kind of Dublin-Core sloppiness in a >>> rational framework. >> >> agreed, we currently have something like >> >> http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfd-rules.n3 > > Right. Though, not meaning to shake things up... ;-) no problem Patrick ;-) > Rules 2, 3, 5a, and 5b in the above have been removed in > the latest draft and a new rule added (see below). > > Rule 3 above follows from the rdfs:range of > rdfd:datatype defined in Rule 0, and thus is > unnecessary. Right, that's true > Rules 2, 5a and 5b have been removed. Both because they > are unnecessary insofar as the datatyping interpretation > is concerned and also because while all three idioms > may all identify the same datatyped literal pairing, > they do not have identical meaning. > > It is similar to the well known "morning star" versus > "evening star" example, where both identify the same thing > but do not really have identical meaning. One idiom thus > does not imply another idiom as their total meaning will > not be the same. > > The present rules, as defined in the current revision of > the WD are: > > -- > > ### rules for RDFD entailment > > @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> . > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . > @prefix rdfd: <http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping#> . > @prefix : <rdfd-rules#> . > > # :rule0 (same as before) > > rdfd:Datatype a rdfs:Class; > rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . > > rdfd:datatype a rdf:Property; > rdfs:domain rdf:Property; > rdfs:range rdfd:Datatype. > > rdfd:lex a rdf:Property; > rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource; > rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . > > { > :rule1 . > ?d a rdfd:Datatype > } > log:implies > { > ?d rdfs:domain ?d ; > rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfd:lex # added this > } . > > { > :rule2 . # in addition to above, addresses type > # inferences for blank node values > ?p rdfd:datatype ?d . > ?s ?p ?o . > ?o rdfd:lex ?l > } > log:implies > { > ?o rdf:type ?d > } . > > -- > > How do those work? ;-) I've found ### rules for RDFD entailment @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> . @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix rdfd: <http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping#> . @prefix : <rdfd-rules#> . rdfd:Datatype a rdfs:Class; rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . rdfd:datatype a rdf:Property; rdfs:domain rdf:Property; rdfs:range rdfd:Datatype. rdfd:lex a rdf:Property; rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource; rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . { :rule1a . ?d a rdfd:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:domain ?d } . { :rule1b . ?d a rdfd:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfd:lex } . { :rule2a . ?p rdfd:datatype ?d . ?s ?p ?o . ?o rdfd:lex ?l } log:implies { ?o a ?d } . { :rule2b . ?p rdfd:datatype ?d . ?s ?p ?o . ?o rdfd:lex ?l } log:implies { ?o ?d ?l } . working with Euler (but using the -test command line switch to disable some optimization stuff) remark that I've added 2b (formerly known as 4 (and I now understand Pat's remark about rule numbering...)) also the reason for the a and b's is to have only 1 statement in the THEN part btw) Is that OK??? (then I put in the web) -- Jos
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 07:10:02 UTC