- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:33:23 -0500
- To: "'Jos De_Roo'" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Jos De_Roo > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:24 PM > To: geoff@sover.net > Cc: 'RDF Rules' > Subject: RE: RDF and OWL rules > > > [...] > > > I seem to have mostly a subset of your rules - i.e. the rules I have > > (with the exception of a couple) correspond to rules that you have. I > > don't have a number that you have: > > > > rule3r2 > > rule5e2, rule5e2 > > guess you meant e1? e3, I think. [...] > > > > Rules that you don't seem to have (but may have been derivable by other > > means?): > > > > someValuesFrom, owl:equivalentClass, owl:complementOf > > right for owl:someValuesFrom > for owl:equivalentClass we have > owl:equivalentClass rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf; > a owl:SymmetricProperty; > a owl:TransitiveProperty. > {:rule7c1. ?a rdfs:subClassOf ?b. ?b rdfs:subClassOf ?a} > => {?a owl:equivalentClass ?b}. Right. I'd missed the consequence of: :equivalentClass rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf and so had added an unnecessary explicit rule: infer {[rdf:type] ?a ?c} from {[rdf:type] ?a ?b} and {[owl:equivalentClass] ?b ?c}; > for owl:complementOf we are still trying negation (by declaration) > owl:complementOf a owl:SymmetricProperty. > {:rule60n1. ?A owl:complementOf ?B. ?C a ?A} => {?C neg:type ?B}. > {:rule60n2. ?A owl:oneOf ?L. ?L neg:item ?C} => {?C neg:type ?A}. > {:rule60n3. ?A owl:complementOf ?B. ?C neg:type ?A} => {?C a ?B}. I had a weak rule for this: infer {[owl:differentFrom] ?x ?y} from {[rdf:type] ?y ?c2} and {[owl:complementOf] ?c1 ?c2} and {[rdf:type] ?x ?c1}; That would go away if owl:complementOf is considered subPropertyOf of owl:disjointWith. I don't think it is though. Could be another path I missed... > > > A few notes: > > > > - seems like either rule4p1 or rule4p2 is necessary, but not both > > (assuming equivalentProperty is stated as symmetric) > > right, good catch; corrected > > > - rule8s6 seems unnecessary (derivable by other rules) > > Well, if I leave it out we get 5 more tescases with > "no proof found" (but we test with --step 100000) > I believe that some redundacy is not bad in practice? Sure, performance is a good thing also :-) We might want to consider somehow noting the more complex rules that exist for performance reasons alone (if any?) when they can be derived from the more basic axioms. > > > - what are the semantics of math:proofCount? Are your cardinality > > inconsistency rules making a unique names assumption? > > math:proofcount is an experimental builtin > to count how many different proofs can be > found for the subject graph posed as query > against the loaded kb (just to experiment) > (will check no-una again but I thought that > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxcardinality/inconsistent001 > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxcardinality/inconsistent002 > were done OK as they needed explicit owl:differentIndividualFrom > (now called owl:differentFrom) statements) But if the owl:differentFroms weren't supplied, then it would wrong to claim a cardinality violation (instead you'd have to infer that at least one of the things is the sameAs another.) > > > - Seems that most inconsistencies (with exception of datatype violations > > and some cardinality issues) stem from something being both the sameAs > > and differentFrom something else or a class being both a subClassOf and > > disjointWith/complementOf another class. How does neg:type fit in? > > we have to work that out... > good idea to think about that one > > > Looks promising - the commonality of results created from separate > > efforts is a good sign. I'm going to bring my rules up to speed with > > yours before publishing them. Then I'll compare my test results with > > yours and try to tackle some of the failing cases. > > looks very promising > > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ --Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:37:48 UTC