Pat Hayes wrote: > Hmm. But it also means that any RDF graph *entails* the same graph with > an arbitrary number of these triples added. So all graphs entail > themselves with random "comments" attached in random "places". This does > not seem like what one would want a reasoning engine to do, so how does > one give a semantic justification for not allowing it? > If annotations are meaningless (as some people claim) then adding annotations does not change the meaning, and a reasoning engine that adds an annotation e.g. eg:eg rdfs:comment "The reasoning engine loaded this at 6.34 pm" . then so be it. It is at least arguable - if people really want that, then I would like that to be clear. JeremyReceived on Friday, 30 November 2007 14:16:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:16 GMT