Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide

My view of this paper is that it introduces a translation of the new RDF(S)
model theory into Horn rules with stratified negation and then complains
about characteristics of the result.  But are these complaints about the
new model theory or about the translation?

The axiomatization for RDF(S) 
developed by Richard Fikes and Deborah McGuinness as part of the
axiomatization of DAML+OIL deserves a look in this context.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

PS:  Calling the interpretation you developed as the ``old interpretation''
and the new model theory as the ``new interpretation'' is unnecessary and
prejudicial.  It implies that your interpretation has some sort of official

From: Wolfram Conen <>
Subject: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:36:30 +0100

> Dear RDF/RDFS interest email list readers,
> those of you who liked our old "Logical Interpretation of RDF" paper and
> who want to explore the relation between the old interpretation and the
> recent RDF Core WG work (decisions/Model Theory draft) might be
> interested in our recent working paper (details see below).
> Title: Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide
> Location:
> Those of you who haven't read the old paper may still profit from the
> new one (hopefully). To allow for a more informed download decision, we
> include the abstract and a brief structural overview below.
> We would be happy about your feedback (
> Thanks for your kind consideration,
>        Wolfram Conen & Reinhold Klapsing
> WORKING PAPER:   Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide
> VERSION: 1.0
> This paper compares the semantics (or stated more precisely: an
> interpretation of the intended semantics) of RDF and RDFS (as previously
> captured in [1]) with the semantics defined by the new upcoming RDF
> Model Theory [2]. While the RDF Model Theory Draft (MT) relies on set
> theory, we interpret the MT utilizing a horn subset of first order
> logic. On one hand, this may facilitate comprehensibility, on the other
> hand it may lead more directly to verifiable implementations. The
> comparison clearly demonstrates the differences between both
> interpretations and discusses some consequence of the non-backward
> compatible treatment of range/domain properties. It may thus help active
> developers to understand the consequences of the changes for existing
> RDF schemata and to adapt their RDF/RDFS applications accordingly where
> possible.
> Sec. 1: Outlines the basic terminology (facts+deductive rules+integrity
> constraints, Datalog).
> Sec. 2: Reviews the horn rules and facts of the old interpretation (of
> the RDFS candidate recommendation)
> Sec. 3: Gives a new interpretation along the lines of the Model Theory,
> again using horn rules (discusses also how some results of the Model
> Theory can be proven within the Datalog/LFP framework we used
> straightforwardly)
> Sec. 4: Compares the interpretations, points out the differences and
> discusses some of the potential problems related to the changes of the
> interpretation of range/domain constraints (Developer's beware! ;)
> [1]
> [2] RDF Model Theory, Editor's Draft as accessed on November 5th, 2001.
> A postcript version of the referenced version is available at
> (The version has been retrieved from

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 09:45:26 UTC