- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:25:47 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > I (haven't yet) even touched the complexity issues. I'm still trying to > get at what the approach is supposed to do here, let alone how hard it is > to do whatever that is. In RDF and RDFS none of the triples are dark, in the following sense. When you write: foo rdfs:subPropertyOf bar . that you have said: that <foo,bar> is a pair in the rdfs:subPropertyOf relationship just as much as foo eg bar . says that they are in the eg relationship. i.e. at some level the triple foo rdfs:subPropertyOf bar . is treated just like any other triple; and then the extension of *rdfs:subPropertyOf* within the model is treated specially. I was moving forwards assuming that was how DAML+OIL works (incorrectly according to Peter?). The dark triple approach is to assign the desired semantics (e.g. that every pair in the property extension of foo is in the property extension of bar) directly to the dark triple in the graph, rather than indirectly as in RDF MT. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 13:55:33 UTC