- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 09:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
I am deeply dissatisfied with the way the various entailment rules are specified in the RDF Semantics document (currently the version of 31 July). I had hoped that the entailment rules would finally end up as complete syntactic characterizations of entailment. This would result in lemmas somewhat along the following lines: RDF(S) entailment lemma: S rdf(s)-entails E if and only if there is a graph that can be derived from S plus the RDF (and RDFS) axiomatic triples by the appliation of the simple entailment rules and RDF entailment rules (and RDFS entailment rules) which is a supergraph of E. Instead the entailment lemmas are incomplete in a disturbing way. The RDF entailment lemma defers to simple entailment, which makes it an incomplete characterization of rdf-entailment. It would be much better to remove this incompleteness. The RDFS entailment lemma also depends on simple entailment, but also has a condition that S be rdfs-consistent. This detracts considerably from the utility of the RDFS entailment rules. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2003 09:29:42 UTC