What represents axioms like <rdf:_i> <rdf:type> <rdf:property> in ruleset? Why are they going from i=1 to i=100?(referencing to ruleset used in OWLIM .pie files) Why are they in RDFS rulesets and also OWL2 DL ruleset/ what's the relationship?

Why are they connected in ContainerMembershipProperty? <rdf:_1> <rdf:type> <rdfs:containermembershipproperty> <rdf:_1> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:resource> <rdf:_1> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:resource>

And what is purpose of axioms in rulesets? What they represets for reasoner? What means they have to be true?(It means that all axioms HAVE TO exist in reasoned ontology?) What if ontology contains axioms which were not specified in rulesets? They won't be reasoned? Will be even reasoning possible?

I know there is too many question for one topic, but somehow they seems related to me. Thank you for all answers.

asked 06 Jan '12, 05:43

Marek%20Surek's gravatar image

Marek Surek
19316
accept rate: 0%


Having 100 of these is a compromise, in a rule-based implementation, for the representation of these axiomatic properties in RDF - see:

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-list-elements and http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Containers

permanent link

answered 06 Jan '12, 06:36

Barry%20Norton's gravatar image

Barry Norton
1.4k19
accept rate: 19%

May easily lead to confusion in an RDF 101... no, just kidding! ;-)

(06 Jan '12, 18:19) Michael Schn... ♦ Michael%20Schneider's gravatar image

Why are they connected in ContainerMembershipProperty? <rdf:_1> <rdf:type> <rdfs:containermembershipproperty> <rdf:_1> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:resource> <rdf:_1> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:resource>

The class rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty is designated (informally) to hold all of the rdf:_i properties.

And what is purpose of axioms in rulesets? What they represets for reasoner? What means they have to be true? (It means that all axioms HAVE TO exist in reasoned ontology?)

RDF(S)/OWL axiomatic statements give premises which always hold for the given semantics; typically they give characteristics of the core language terms described in the language itself; they are trivially always true. Not considering them may lead to missed inferences, and generally incomplete reasoning.

What if ontology contains axioms which were not specified in rulesets? They won't be reasoned? Will be even reasoning possible?

Axomatic statements are often given as part of the ruleset, and form part of the "a-priori" knowledge of the reasoner. User-defined axioms (like in an ontology) can then be passed.

permanent link

answered 06 Jan '12, 10:22

Signified's gravatar image

Signified ♦
23.9k1623
accept rate: 37%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×162
×68
×3

question asked: 06 Jan '12, 05:43

question was seen: 1,360 times

last updated: 06 Jan '12, 18:19