Hello Folks -

The material below was posted to www-rdf-comments@w3.org yesterday. 

Brian McBride kindly pointed out that this list (www-rdf-interest@w3.org) is a more appropriate one.

Apologies to the rdf-comments folks, and thanks in advance for rdf-interest feedback.

                        -- Adrian

Peter --

I have been following some of the discussion about RDF entailment, and I have a rather naive question please.

Would it be helpful to do the following ?

1) Map the RDF notation into ordinary predicate logic (or datalog, or other, as appropriate).
   (Perhaps using something like  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/#Lbase )

2) Use the available large body of theory results, theorem provers, datalog processors etc to prove and run entailments.

3)  Map back to RDF notation.

4)  If direct processing of RDF entailments in RDF notation, without mapping in and out of logical notation is needed,  'compile down'  the steps 1, 2, and 3.

Hope this helps.                     -- Adrian

                                   INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
          Your English Business Rules Using Your Oracle Database

Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029

X-Originating-IP: []
Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 09:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Subject: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20030803.090724.07263263.pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Resent-From: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org> archive/latest/3659
X-Loop: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Sender: www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
List-Id: <www-rdf-comments.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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