- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: 2002年11月06日 23:33:35 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20021106.233335.58013180.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I took at look at the RDF MT document to see what changes needed to be done to the OWL MT and found a few problems. 1/ The change to make LV a subset of IR has not found its way into several places in the document. In particular, there definition of a simple interpretation mentions IR union LV. 2/ IP is not introduced in Section 3.1. Is IP a component of an RDF interpretation? 3/ The condition on IEXT in Section 3.1 does not follow from RDF M&S. It only follows from RDFSS. In fact, rdf:Resource does not appear at all in RDF M&S. 4/ The IEXT condition on rdf:Property in an rdf-interpretation is only implied by the ICEXT condition on rdf:Property in rdfs-interpretations. 5/ The closure condition rdf1 is not valid in rdf-interpretations. Therefore, the RDF entailment lemma is false. 6/ The RDFS closure rules are missing several classes, ranges, and subclasses. 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. 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 Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 23:33:43 UTC