- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:21:39 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] > g0: > eg:a eg:p eg:b . > > This is entirely unproblematic, and there is a wide consensus in the group > as to its meaning. Thus it is in W. > (A syntactic characterisation of those conditions is needed). > > Under RDF there are a number of other one triple graphs that are entailed > > g1: > _:x eg:p eg:b . > > g2: > _:x eg:p _:y . > > g3: > eg:a eg:p _:x . > > > g4: > eg:p rdf:type rdf:Property . > > g5: > rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property . > > Now, g1, g2 and g3 are also unproblematic and so in W, hence g0 is required > to owl-entail g1, g2 and g3. > However, g4 and g5 may be problematic, since the first assumes that > properties are in the domain of discourse and the second assumes that > class-membership is in the domain of discourse. For g4, how could eg:p (used in g0) NOT be in the domain of discourse? (I want to say anything about anything) It's (almost) cast in stone in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ as [[[ if E contains then add rdf1 xxx aaa yyy . aaa [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] . ]]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdf_entail as is for g5 [[[ 1. Add the following triple (which is true in any rdf-interpretation): [rdf:type] [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] . ]]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdf_entail Can someone PLEASE, yes PLEASE clarify? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 12:22:20 UTC