From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 11/22/01
I don't think so, because of the triples generated by DAML+OIL logical
constructs.
For example, consider
<rdfs:Class foo>
<daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Man">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Woman">
</daml:intersectionOf>
</rdfs:Class>
This does not RDFS entail
<rdfs:Class foo>
<daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Woman">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Man">
</daml:intersectionOf>
</rdfs:Class>
because the RDF-encoding of the collections involved.
Now, maybe we can live with this, as we don't really want to ask about
entailment between classes.
However, if we add
<foo rdf:about="John"/>
to both examples. The entailment is still not there.
This is much more serious.
Even more serious is that
<rdfs:Class foo>
<daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Man">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Woman">
</daml:intersectionOf>
</rdfs:Class>
<foo rdf:about="John"/>
does not entail
<foo rdf:about="John"
<rdf:type>
<daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Man">
<daml:Class rdf:about="Woman">
</daml:intersectionOf>
</rdf:type>
</foo>
this time because of the extra logical stuff attached to John.
How can this be fixed? About the only way I can see is to not produce
RDF graph structure for the DAML+OIL logical stuff. However, this is very
hard if we start with RDF triples, as how to we tell which triples are
logical and which are not?
The situation is *much* better if we start with XML, as then we know where
we stand.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST