Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
FullTopicsRDFSemantics
OWL-1.1-Full Topic: RDF(S) Semantics
Contents
Issues in RDF(S)
Possible types of issues:
- BUG: An error
- FEATURE: A request for a new feature
- CHANGE: A request for changing a current feature
FEATURE: bNodes should be allowed in predicate position
ter Horst shows in the pD* paper that not having bNode predicates is a problem for the completeness proof of the entailment lemma (sec. 1.5), and that this problem can be removed by allowing such bNodes ("extended RDF graphs").
CHANGE: Annotation properties should have range rdfs:Resource
Currently, the following axiomatic triples exist in the RDFS spec:
- rdfs:comment rdfs:range rdfs:Literal
- rdfs:label rdfs:range rdfs:Literal
This is a problem, since people like for instance to have graphics as labels.
CHANGE: domain and range of all properties should be rdfs:Resource
Currently, AFAICS, RDFS doesn't provide the "obvious" fact that subject and object of a triple are resources. There are only several axiomatic triples, which specify the domain and range of the properties from the RDFS vocabulary specifically.
I suggest to
- remove all the axiomatic of the form p rdf:domain/range C,
- add axiomatic triples of the form "rdfs:comment rdf:type rdf:Property
- add the following semantic condition to RDFS:
IF p in IP THEN (p, I(rdfs:Resource)) in IEXT(I(rdfs:domain)) AND (p, I(rdfs:Resource)) in IEXT(I(rdfs:range))
This would automatically include all removed axiomatic triples.
Because of the "if" semantics of RDFS for rdfs:domain and rdfs:range, this is a stronger condition than
IF p in IP AND (x,y) in IEXT(p) THEN x,y in ICEXT(rdfs:Resource)