RE: MT RDFS closure rule bug?

Pat

I saw in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0178.html

that you argued against Jos for the truth of basic set theoretic facts from
nothing.

My range and domian rules seem to me to be of a similar truth status. (There may
be a choice, and that choice depends upon how we regard the representation of
logical facts within the domain of discourse. Given that webont wants to be able
to represent such facts without having to explicitly assert them, then shouldn't
we be taking the same position in RDF Core too?)

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 26 June 2002 10:09
> To: pat hayes
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: MT RDFS closure rule bug?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >Pat,
> > >
> > >don't we need RDFS closure rules that add range and domain constraints
> > >e.g.
> > >
> > >aaa [rdfs:range] yyy
> > >yyy [rdfs:subClassOf] zzz
> > >
> > >then add
> > >
> > >aaa [rdfs:range] zzz
> > >
> > >
> > >and similarly for rdfs:domain.
> >
> > NO. That would be disastrous for the datatyping and in any case not
> > make sense. Why do want them?
> >
> >
>
> We don't *want* them, they are just true!
> Or maybe I've been talking to Peter too much!
>
> Any interpretation of any
>
> > >aaa [rdfs:range] yyy
> > >yyy [rdfs:subClassOf] zzz
>
>
> is an interpretation of
>
> > >aaa [rdfs:range] zzz
>
>
> thus the closure rule holds.
>
> (Not) Proof:
>
> Ahh, it depends on rdfs:range not being in the domain of discourse.
> neglecting that little factette and invalidating the proof ...
>
> Whenever
> iii aaa jjj .
> then
> jjj [rdf:type] yyy .
> hence
> jjj [rdf:type] zzz .
>
> hence
>
> aaa [rdfs:range] zzz .
>
> ==
>
> I smell danger.
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 05:31:05 UTC