Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary

By Herman J. ter Horst. Journal of Web Semantics, 2005

366 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3eb6c6660a757b41dbe1258e8994540b291b7856

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Ian Horrocks
2. Boris Motik
3. U. Sattler
4. Bernardo Cuenca Grau
5. Bijan Parsia
6. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
7. Axel Polleres
8. Claudio Gutiérrez

In Information Systems

1. Ian Horrocks
2. Boris Motik
3. U. Sattler
4. Bernardo Cuenca Grau
5. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
6. Claudio Gutiérrez
7. Bijan Parsia
8. Axel Polleres

Citations in the corpus

• Foundations of semantic web databases (2004, methodology): “Characterizations and Complexity of Entailment In this section we present some well-known results about the complexity of testing entailment between RDF graphs [23, 10, 27].”
• OWL 2: The next step for OWL (2008, methodology): “These implications are reminiscent of the pD semantics for OWL 1 [35], and they provide a useful starting point for the implementation of forward-chaining reasoners for OWL 2 RL.”
• Semantics : Science , Services and Agents on the World Wide Web (2014, background): “Furthermore, ter Horst [11] showed that the RDFS entailment lemma in the non-normative section of the RDF Semantics is incorrect: blank node surrogates are still not enough for the completeness of the standard RDFS entailment rules, where blank nodes would also need to be allowed in the predicate po”