- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:28:29 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk
>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. Well, true. If that really is what people want. But I wonder if it really is. Dark triples would be safer. Pat > >Jeremy -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 20:28:53 UTC