| Question asked
|
Section 1.5 first points out the authors d … Section 1.5 first points out the authors discovery that the RDFS entailment rules are incomplete, demonstrated in that section with the example { p rdfs:subPropertyOf b . v p w . } failing to infer { v b w } because the blank node b cannot syntactically appear in the predicate position. The paper goes on to consider "generalized RDF graphs" which relax this syntactic restriction, allowing a completion of the RDFS entailment rules. Is this approach preferable to one in which RDFS simply disallows blank nodes to refer to properties? Can you give a (hopefully compelling) example where the relaxation is preferable to the restriction? laxation is preferable to the restriction?
|
