>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/phayesReceived on Friday, 30 November 2007 20:28:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:16 GMT