- 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
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 UTC