- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:51:30 +0300
- To: <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org] > Sent: 09 April, 2003 15:50 > To: Brian McBride > Cc: Graham Klyne; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics) > > > > [snip] > > here's an idea re health warning. > > write a test case (would be a new kind of test case for us) that uses > *OWL* semantics for inferring identity (eg. via > InverseFunctionalProperty). > > The goal would be for inferences justified by the OWL rules to cause > 'annoying' onclusions involving the resources named by > rdf:predicate, :subject > or :object properties. We could even ask TimBL if he could > re-couch his > concerns about the semantics using such an approach... > > I understand this would need a fwd reference to OWL, but > since it would be > a 'health warning' note for implementors rather than a formal > rdf core test > case I don't see that as a problem. Do you mean basically telling folks not to write rules that infer things from reifications directly, but only from asserted triples? If so, then I agree. Patrick
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 02:51:37 UTC