- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:20:39 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Two rdfs entailment rules do not seem to be stated in sufficient generality. This is indicated by the following two counterexamples to the rdfs entailment lemma. Example: graph G consists of triples x subPropertyOf y y subPropertyOf z where x y and z are blank nodes. In this case the semantics shows that G rdfs-entails the triple x subPropertyOf z However this triple is not derived by rule rdfs5, since this rule requires x y and z to be URIs. A similar problem occurs with rule rdfs9. Example: graph H consists of triples x subClassOf y z type x where z is a blank node. According to the semantics, H rdfs-entails the triple z type y This triple is however not derived by rule rdfs9 since this rule requires z to be a URI. Herman ter Horst
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 05:22:53 UTC