- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:13:46 -0700
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> >.....
>>> >>The semantic conditions on rdfs:range and rdfs:domain in Section 3.3
>>>>>do not yet incorporate explicit domain assumptions as just
>>>>>discussed. It seems that additions such as the following need
>>>>>therefore to be made:
>>>>
>>>>The additions suggested are not required, since they follow from the
>>>>axiomatic triples in the next table and the other conditions on range
>>>>and domain.
>>>>
>>>>It is probably easiest to express the reasoning in terms of triples
>>>>that must be satisfied by an interpretation I. For example, suppose
>>>><x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range)), ie that
>>>>
>>>>I |= (x) rdfs:range (y)
>>>
>>>I do not understand this step. In these two lines x/y have a different
>>>origin. In "<x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range))", x and y are in IR.
>>>In the triple "(x) rdfs:range (y)", x and y are uri's or blank nodes
>>>(y may also be a literal). So this conclusion ("ie that")
>>>is not clear.
>>
>>Sorry, I was using an unstated convention. Let me rephrase it more
>carefully.
>>
>>Suppose <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range)) and suppose that I(aaa)=x and
>>I(bbb)=y. Then
>>
>>I |= aaa rdfs:range bbb .
>>
>>Now, since
>>
> >I |= rdfs:range rdfs:domain rdf:Property . (axiomatic triple)
>>
>>it follows by the semantic conditions on rdfs:domain that
>>
>>I |= aaa rdf:type rdf:Property .
>>
>>and hence that I(aaa)=x is in IP.
>>
>>Similarly for bbb, the axiomatic triple defining the range of
>>rdfs:range, and IC.
>>
>>Pat
>
>Pat, thank you for the explanation.
>You now introduce in the proof an additional assumption.
No, this is only an assumption of the way I presented the argument in
the email. Let me rephrase the argument in full without trying to
shorten it:
First, the truth of the axiomatic triple
rdfs:range rdfs:domain rdf:Property .
and the semantic conditions on rdfs:domain together require that
<x,y> inIEXT(I(rdfs:range)) implies x in ICEXT(I(rdf:Property))
which in turn, by applying the condition (definition if you like :)
IP= ICEXT(I(rdf:Property))
means that
<x,y> in IEXT(I(rdfs:range)) implies x in IP
Similarly y is in IC, using a different axiomatic triple.
Is this more convincing?
-Pat
>What you prove is the following:
> If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range))
> AND IF x and y are in the range of the function IS
> then x is in IP and y is in IC.
>However, this statement does not suffice: the additional
>assumption (AND IF ...) would need to be dropped.
>However, I believe that it is not possible to prove that
> If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range))
> then x is in IP and y is in IC
>(and similarly for rdfs:domain).
>
>Therefore, my remark remains.
>Let me recall in a slightly rephrased manner what I said in
>the first mail in this thread:
>
>For each occurrence of IEXT(x) or ICEXT(x), it
>should be clear that x is in the domain of the function
>involved. (For IEXT, this domain is the set IP.
>For ICEXT, the domain is the set IC, as you have now confirmed.)
>For example, in Section 3.3 the semantic conditions on
>subClassOf and subPropertyOf take care of this explicitly.
>
>The semantic conditions on rdfs:range and rdfs:domain in Section 3.3
>do not yet incorporate explicit domain assumptions as just
>discussed. It seems that additions such as the following need
>therefore to be made:
>
> If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range))
> [then x is in IP and y is in IC] and
> [if, in addition,] <u,v> is in IEXT(x) then
> v is in ICEXT(y)
>
> If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:domain))
> [then x is in IP and y is in IC] and
> [if, in addition,] <u,v> is in IEXT(x) then
> u is in ICEXT(y)
>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202
>4416 office
>>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
>>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>>s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
>>
>>
>
>Herman
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 14:13:50 UTC