Semanlink - RDF Vocabularies AND Entailment

RDF Vocabularies AND Entailment

Descendants partagés

2 Documents

ISWC 2008: Some Questions - Inference: Is it always forward chaining?

Tags:

2009-01-03 A propos

Horst, Herman J. ter: Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary

Tags:

We prove that entailment for RDFS (RDF Schema) is decidable, NP-complete, and in P if the target graph does not contain blank nodes.We show that the standard set of entailment rules for RDFS is incomplete and that this can be corrected by allowing blank nodes in predicate position. We define semantic extensions of RDFS that involve datatypes and a subset of the OWL vocabulary that includes the property-related vocabulary (e.g. Functional- Property), the comparisons (e.g. sameAs and differentFrom) and the value restrictions (e.g. allValuesFrom). These semantic extensions are in line with the 'if-semantics' of RDFS and weaker than the 'iff-semantics' of D-entailment and OWL (DL or Full). For these semantic extensions we present entailment rules, prove completeness results, prove that consistency is in P and that, just as for RDFS, entailment is NP-complete, and in P if the target graph does not contain blank nodes. There are no restrictions on use to obtain decidability: classes can be used as instances.

2007-02-06 A propos