Re: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Subject: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:48:11 -0400

> Hi Peter,
> 
> I was composing a response to Dave Becket on the imports issue, when I
> noticed a problem with imports in the RDF-Compatible Semantics. In
> section 5.3, you define the term "imports closed" but then never use it.
> 
> I believe you need to change the last definition in the section from:
> 
> "Definitions: Let K and Q be collections of RDF graphs. Then K OWL Full
> entails Q whenever every OWL Full interpretation (of any vocabulary V
> that includes the RDF and RDFS vocabularies and the OWL vocabulary that
> satisfies all the RDF graphs in K also satisfies all the RDF graphs in
> Q. K is OWL     Full consistent if there is some OWL Full interpretation
> that satisfies all the RDF graphs in K."
> 
> to something like:
> 
> "Definitions: Let K and Q be collections of RDF graphs. Then K OWL Full
> entails Q whenever every OWL Full interpretation (of any vocabulary V
> that includes the RDF and RDFS vocabularies and the OWL vocabulary) that
> satisfies all the RDF graphs in K', the imports closure of K, also
> satisfies all the RDF graphs in Q. K is OWL Full consistent if there is
> some OWL Full interpretation that satisfies all the RDF graphs in K'."

> Note the closing of the parenthesis, and the mention of K' as the
> imports closure of K. You would also have to make a similar change to
> the definition of OWL DL entailment.
> 
> Please let me know if you agree.
> 
> Jeff

Yes, there is an oversight here.  I propose, however, to instead use

  Definitions: Let K and Q be imports-closed collections of RDF graphs.
  [... as before]

peter

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 03:52:36 UTC