- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl>
- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:07:14 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [snip] (Caveat: I can not find the Nov 6 WD that you are referring to, but assume that it is not such a dramatic change from the April 29 version that the following no longer holds). > 7/ The RDFS closure rules are incomplete, even if the above problems > are fixed. Therefore, the RDFS entailment lemma is false. > > For example, rdf:type rdfs:domain foo . a b c . RDFS-entails a > rdf:type foo . because every resource has rdfs:Resource as a type, as > I have pointed out before. Isn't this example covered by subsequent application of rdfs4a and rdfs2? a b c -> a rdf:type rdfs:Resource (rdfs4a) a rdf:type rdfs:Resource & a rdfs:domain foo -> a rdf:type foo (rdfs2) > Also, a b c . RDFS-entails a rdf:type rdfs:Class . because every > resource is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource and, rdfs:subClassOf > rdfs:domain foo . a b c . RDFS-entails a rdf:type foo . because > [every resource is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource] I'm baffled by these two observations. Where is it specified that every resource is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource? Best regards, Jeen -- jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl aidministrator nederland bv - http://www.aidministrator.nl/ julianaplein 14b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands tel. +31-(0)33-4659987, fax. +31-(0)33-4659987
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 09:11:21 UTC