W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:28:29 -0600
Message-Id: <p06230909c37622a7dbd1@[]>
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.
>   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.



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC