W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: comments on current (6 Nov) draft of RDF MT document

From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:07:14 +0100
Message-ID: <3DCBC512.4030203@aidministrator.nl>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


(Caveat: I can not find the Nov 6 WD that you are referring to, but
  assume that it is not such a dramatic change from the April 29 version
  that the following no longer holds).

 > 7/ The RDFS closure rules are incomplete, even if the above problems
 > are fixed.  Therefore, the RDFS entailment lemma is false.
 > For example, rdf:type rdfs:domain foo . a b c . RDFS-entails a
 > rdf:type foo . because every resource has rdfs:Resource as a type, as
 >  I have pointed out before.

Isn't this example covered by subsequent application of rdfs4a and rdfs2?

a b c -> a rdf:type rdfs:Resource (rdfs4a)

a rdf:type rdfs:Resource
	& a rdfs:domain foo -> a rdf:type foo (rdfs2)

 > Also, a b c . RDFS-entails a rdf:type rdfs:Class . because every
 > resource is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource and, rdfs:subClassOf
 > rdfs:domain foo . a b c . RDFS-entails a rdf:type foo . because
 > [every resource is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource]

I'm baffled by these two observations. Where is it specified that every
resource is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource?

Best regards,

aidministrator nederland bv - http://www.aidministrator.nl/
julianaplein 14b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands
tel. +31-(0)33-4659987, fax. +31-(0)33-4659987
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 09:08:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:37 UTC