- From: Nick Bassiliades <nbassili@csd.auth.gr>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:01:54 +0300
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <412DA702.30608@csd.auth.gr>
Jan Grant wrote: >On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Nick Bassiliades wrote: > > > >>Hi all, >> >>I would like to ask you whether I am missing something from the extensional >>entailment rules ext1&2 >>in the RDF Semantics document (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/). >> >>Rule ext1 says that when: >> uuu rdfs:domain vvv . >>and >> vvv rdfs:subClassOf zzz . >>are true, then the triple: >> uuu rdfs:domain zzz . >>should be added. >> >>However, IMHO this looks rather bizarre! This rule states that when a property >>has a certain class as a >>domain, it must also have all its superclasses as a domain. I believe that >>it's the other way around: >>all the subclasses of a class can be domains for the property uuu. >> >>For example, >> uni:faculty rdfs:subClassOf uni:staff . (/Faculty members are member of >>the staff/) >> uni:teaches rdfs:domain uni:faculty . (/Faculty members teach/) >>then we infer with rule ext1 that: >> uni:teaches rdfs:domain uni:staff . (/All members of the staff can >>teach!/) >> >>I would expect it to work the other way around: >> uni:lecturer rdfs:subClassOf uni:faculty . (/Lecturers are //Faculty >>members/) >> uni:teaches rdfs:domain uni:faculty . (/Faculty members teach/) >>then we infer that: >> uni:teaches rdfs:domain uni:lecturer . (/Lecturers // can teach/) >> >>Am I missing something here? >> >> > >The semantics are conjunctive. To say that "the domain of uni:teaches is >uni:faculty" means, if you have statements of the kind > X uni:teaches Y . >then X must be a member of uni:faculty: we can infer that about its >type. What we can't do is infer that X is a uni:lecturer; but we _can_ >logically infer that X must also be a member of uni:staff. The rules for >domain and range are universally quantified in this fashion, so whilst >it looks odd it's right. > > > However, the above scenario is already covered by existing entailment rules: IF 1) X uni:teaches Y . & 2) uni:teaches rdfs:domain uni:faculty . & 3) uni:faculty rdfs:subClassOf uni:staff . THEN 4) X rdf:type uni:faculty . (due to (1) & (2) and rule rdfs2) & 5) X rdf:type uni:staff . (due to (4) & (3) and rule rdfs9) I am not sure why rule ext1 is necessary, since it is subsumed by the two other rules. Nick -- ********************************************************************* * Dr. Nick Bassiliades, Assistant Professor * * Dept. of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki * * 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece * * * * Tel: +302310997913 E-mail: nbassili@csd.auth.gr * * Fax: +302310998419 URL: http://lpis.csd.auth.gr/people/nbassili * *********************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 09:00:41 UTC