- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:28:50 -0400
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:14:52 -0700 > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > > > Suppose an agent is given > > > > <ex:Student> <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:Person> . > > <ex:John> <rdf:type> <ex:Student> . > > <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdf:type> <rdf:Property> . > > <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:Class> . > > <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Class> . > > <rdfs:Class> <rdf:type> <rdfs:Class> . > > > > and responds that it entails > > > > <ex:John> <rdf:type> <ex:Person> . > > > > This agent is not an RDF reasoner (is not doing RDF). Its reasoning is > > unsound in RDF. The agent may be an RDFS reasoner, but it is not doing > > RDF. > > I agree, given *only* the assertions in the rdf namespace, there is no way > that an automated agent *could* arrive at that entailment. But given the > logical interpretation of certain rdfs:comments, it certainly can be > entailed. Yes, but my point is that this logical interpretation is *not* RDF entailment. It is, instead, RDFS entailment. > I seems to me that any automated agent that attempts to arrive > at conclusions about assertions, without knowing any rules that apply to its > predicate, would always be going beyond the data given. Don't we all know > that? Why is this important to us now? Well, because some people seem to think that RDF encompasses the logical interpretation of such comments. > Seth Russell peter
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:29:39 UTC