- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:46:13 +0100
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: "<pfps" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ""www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jonathan, > > > > > > > > > > good point, I've added > > > > > { ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } . > > > > > > > > How would one write the above in RDF? > > > > we can surely look to the premis { _:L owl:item _:x } as an RDF graph > > where the bnodes of that graph (luckily) become universally quantified > > (reaching to conclusion scope) therefore we write ?L instead of _:L > > the premis statements are *not* asserted > > we can also look to { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } as an RDF graph :c, where > > [ owl:oneOf ?L ] is like a Skolem functional term replacement of a bnode > > also the conclusion graph is *not* asserted > > :p log:implies :c is an RDF statement that *is* asserted > > This is precisely my point. The current RDF makes it rather cumbersome to > represent an _unasserted_ graph. An attempt to translate that into actual > RDF would expose this. Again, if we are to use RDF, we had better use RDF as > it actually exits, and see if it works. > > I want to ensure that our syntax will be usable. Indeed, and also the semantics of course. Given that such predicates as log:implies 'know' that they have to look for sets of statements they could do that either by dereferencing a uri or by immediate addressing such as N3's { }. I just don't know how to express the latter in XML. On the other hand, this is yet just intended as a means toward machine readable MT entailment rules (such as http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfs_entail) and not yet query/rules stuff which is out of scope. -- Jos
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 06:50:50 UTC