Re: Is there an implementer's convention for indicating false?

Graham Klyne,

> I'm wondering if there's any common convention among 
> implementers of RDF inference systems for indicating 
> that some offered premis is unsatisfiable, in systems 
> where all results are presented as some form of RDF.

I don't work on inference systems, but here's an educated guess:

> e.g.
> 
>     _:a owl:sameAs "1" .
>     _:a owl:sameAs "2" .
> =>
>     ?
>
> (expressed as an RDF graph.)

This might work, but it seems too _verbose_ and uses the vaguely defined
rdf:value property.  Is there a simpler way with more defined semantics?

] _:o1 rdf:type owl:Ontology .
] _:o1 owl:incompatibleWith _:o2 .
] _:o1 rdf:value t1 .
]   _:t1 rdf:type rdf:Statement .
]     _:t1 rdf:subject _:a .
]     _:t1 rdf:predicate owl:sameAs .
]     _:t1 rdf:object "1" .

] _:o2 rdf:type owl:Ontology .
] _:o2 owl:incompatibleWith _:o1 .
] _:o2 rdf:value t2 .
]   _:t2 rdf:type rdf:Statement .
]     _:t2 rdf:subject _:a .
]     _:t2 rdf:predicate owl:sameAs .
]     _:t2 rdf:object "2" .

I wish we didn't need to define new ontologies to contain each triple.
Furthermore, the below feels good, but won't work because of the precise
semantics (not to mention ___domain and range) of owl:incompatibleWith.  I
still think the below _should be_ allowed:

] _:t1 rdf:type rdf:Statement .
]   _:t1 owl:incompatibleWith _:t2 .
]   _:t1 rdf:subject _:a .
]   _:t1 rdf:predicate owl:sameAs .
]   _:t1 rdf:object "1" .

] _:t2 rdf:type rdf:Statement .
]   _:t2 owl:incompatibleWith _:t1 .
]   _:t2 rdf:subject _:a .
]   _:t2 rdf:predicate owl:sameAs .
]   _:t2 rdf:object "2" .

Again, I never needed to answer such a problem, but that's what my initial
thinking would be.  Hope it helps!

--
Jimmy Cerra

] "A good decision is based on knowledge 
]  and not on numbers" - Plato

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:54:05 UTC