- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ihmc.us
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: pfps-05 RDFS closure rules [not complete yet] Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:40:46 -0500 > >I believe that the rules for rdfs entailments are still incomplete in the > >current version of RDF Semantics (Editors [sic] Draft July 27). > > > >For example, consider the RDF graph > > > > ex:foo ex:bar "<"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . > > ex:bar rdfs:range rdf:XMLLiteral . > > > >I believe that this graph has no rdfs-intepretations > > Yes, you are right. I had overlooked this case; and the proof > implicitly assumes that XML literals are wellformed. > > I will modify the statement of the RDFS entailment lemma so as to > exclude such cases, by requiring the antecedent to be consistent. I would view this as an unsatisfactory outcome unless there was some proof-theoretic way of describing rdfs-consistent sets of graphs. > I > will also add explanatory text to section 5, which has a paragraph > which curently ends: > "An ill-typed literal does not in itself constitute an inconsistency, > but a graph which entails that an ill-typed literal has rdf:type > rdfs:Literal would be inconsistent." > > to be modified to: > > "An ill-typed literal does not in itself constitute an inconsistency, > but a graph which entails that an ill-typed literal has rdf:type > rdfs:Literal, or that an ill-typed XML literal has rdf:type > rdf:XMLLiteral, would be inconsistent." > > Thanks for catching this. > > Pat > > > > and thus that it > >rdfs-entails > > > > rdf:type rdf:type rdf:type . > > > >which I believe cannot be deduced from the RDFS entailment rules. > > > >peter I also note that the use of ``derives'' is rather sloppy in the document. As well, there is no entry for ``derivation'' in the glossary. peter
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 20:00:50 UTC