W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: rdf:first/rest/nil/List: syntax-only at the RDF level

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:14:16 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b06b9e70663fdb0@[]>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>>  I actually said in the MT document that those rules weren't intended
>>  to define a process or to be directly implemented. I wish Id never
>>  mentioned closure rules: it was only intended to be a way of relating
>>  the semantics together.
>right, I understand that, but still, inference rules can be inferenced
>why then not use e.g. owl properties for some of the rdfs-rules
>rdf:first a owl:FunctionalProperty.          # and just have rdf:List
>rdfs:subClassOf a owl:TransitiveProperty.    # instead of rule5
>rdfs:subPropertyOf a owl:TransitiveProperty. # instead of rule3

Sure, I have no problem with that. However it just puts the real 
issue under the rug, since those owl properties now have to be 
reasoned about, and the question re-appears as how best to think 
about owl:TransitiveProperty and so on. It you follow Ian's 
translation of OWL (DLs generally) back into FOPC, the 'rules' just 
re-appear in any case; TransitiveProperty becomes the implication you 
would expect, and so on.

You know, all we are all doing is taking little pieces of logic and 
inventing about 7 different notations for them and then writing long 
papers about how to translate between the notations we have invented 


>I really can't see any problem with such an *implementation*
>at least not as far as I did tests with that (for all our testcases)
>(in a similar way, owl-rules could make use of e.g. math properties)
>-- ,
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 11:14:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:17 UTC