W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cwm-talk@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: testing log:includes and log:notIncludes

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:33:11 -0600
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Message-Id: <1103815992.3199.25.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 13:37 +0100, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
> while testing log:includes and log:notIncludes
> cwm found that
> 
> {} log:notIncludes {_:x a rdfs:Resource}.
> 
> which is OK I think
> (euler is not OK for that but I am fixing)
> 
> both cwm and euler found that
> 
> {} log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2}.
> 
> which is not like simple entailment..

Yes... we've wondered now and again whether log:includes should
know about built-ins or not. After I saw SimonR's design[14Dec]
it occurred to me that the built-ins could be regarded as
graphs of their own, so that

{} log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2 }

 would not be the case but

(math:kb {}).log:conjunction log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2}

 would be true.


[14Dec]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0469.html

> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:32:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:01 GMT