- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ihmc.us
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: incompleteness of rdf-closure Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:33:07 -0500 > >The RDF entailment lemma is still not valid in the 6 June 2003 version of > >RDF semantics. > > That might well be the case: I have not yet checked the proof in > detail after the many editorial changes. > > > > >For example, the empty RDF graph rdf-entails > > rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property . > >but this is not part of the rdf-closure of the empty RDF graph. > > It is: > > rdf:subject rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . (rdfs axiom) > rdfs:range rdfs:domain rdf:Property . (rdfs axiom) > rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property . (rdfs2) I don't understand how two rdfs axioms and an rdfs rule can be used in the determination of a rdf-closure. > The rdf:types of all the rest of the RDFS class and property > vocabulary can be derived similarly from the domains and ranges of > domain and range plus the exhaustive listing of the domains and > ranges of the vocabulary in the RDFS axiomatic triple table. > > Clearly, however, the text should provide details of derivations of > this kind (and many others) rather than merely hinting at them. > > Pat peter
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 10:08:19 UTC