- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:10:31 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: gk@ninebynine.org, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, phayes@ihmc.us, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . and {: rdfs:fyi :rdfs12b. ?Q rdfs:range ?Y. ?P root:range ?X. ?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?Q} => {?X rdfs:subClassOf ?Y}. and rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:domain rdfs:Class; rdfs:range rdfs:Class; root:domain rdfs:Class; root:range rdfs:Class. rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:domain rdf:Property; rdfs:range rdf:Property; root:domain rdf:Property; root:range rdf:Property. rdf:type rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource; rdfs:range rdfs:Class; root:domain rdfs:Resource. do *not* RDFS entail rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . at least not in our implementation (the root: is there to not have such an entailment) Do you have a proof? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" To: phayes@ihmc.us <pfps@research.bell-l cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Jos abs.com> De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA, gk@ninebynine.org Sent by: Subject: Re: incompleteness in RDFS closure rules www-rdf-comments-requ est@w3.org 2003-06-10 04:55 PM From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: incompleteness in RDFS closure rules Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:39:52 -0500 > > rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf xxx . > > xxx rdfs:domain yyy . > > > >RDFS-entails > > > > rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf yyy . > > > >but this does not come out of the RDFS closure rules. > > > > > > > > rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf xxx . > > xxx rdfs:range yyy . > > > >RDFS-entails > > > > rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf yyy . > > > >but this does not come out of the RDFS closure rules. > > > > > > > > rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf xxx . > > xxx rdfs:domain yyy . > > > >RDFS-entails > > > > rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf yyy . > > > >but this does not come out of the RDFS closure rules. > > > > > > > > rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf xxx . > > xxx rdfs:range yyy . > > > >RDFS-entails > > > > rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf yyy . > > > >but this does not come out of the RDFS closure rules. > > > Yes, you are perfectly correct. The rule rdfs12 has been generalized > to include these cases, as follows: > > rdfs12a > > ppp rdfs:subPropertyOf zzz . > ppp rdfs:domain xxx . > zzz rdfs:domain yyy . > |- > xxx rdfs:subClassOf yyy . > > rdfs12b > > ppp rdfs:subPropertyOf zzz . > ppp rdfs:range xxx . > zzz rdfs:range yyy . > |- > xxx rdfs:subClassOf yyy . > > where in 12a, ppp is one of rdf:type, rdfs:subPropertyOf, > rdfs:subClassOf, and in 12b only the last two are allowed (because an > empty class need not be in the range of a superproperty of rdf:type). > Including rdf:type in the 12a case covers the inference noticed > earlier by Herman, though the rationale is somewhat different. These > rules are not valid more generally because of the inclusive nature of > domain and range. > > BTW, the URI of the current editors draft has changed somewhat: these > changes are now visible at > > http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_Edit_nT.html > > Thanks for noticing this. > > Pat I do not believe that these rules are valid. For example, if I say rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . which seems like a benign thing to say, then I get the conclusion rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . from rule rdfs12b. peter
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 14:39:22 UTC