- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 20:50:36 +0200
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On 8 Aug 2006, at 20:09, Enrico Franconi wrote: >> I think then that the definitions in section 5.1 must be changed >> to avoid >> these problems, or the claim in section 5.2 must be revised to >> strictly >> reflect what an implementation has to do to find solutions in the >> case of >> simple entailment according to the formal definition. > > The analysis is correct. I'd be strongly in favour of the latter, Of course, I should have said "the former"... > i.e. to change the definitions in 5.1, since the claim in 5.2 > relates the theory with the current practice and efficient > implementations (based on subgraph matching), and the theory should > just (elegantly) capture that. --e.
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 18:57:29 UTC