W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:26:45 +0100
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF36489D7D.16FE0172-ONC1257106.006E1C84-C1257106.0070446C@agfa.com>

[...large snip]
>>>I did not misread the definition: I suggest that y'all read through 
>>>the above carefully, and think about it.
>>
>>We did it carefully. It is easy to see that the latest 
>>characterisation is correct, see above.
>>Convinced?
>
>No.
Well, I can't really add very much here, but in the past I
did some RDF and OWL entailment test cases and for the
current test cases that I tested it is clearly the case that
G simple-entails (G' union S(BGP'))
and can only speak from my own implementation experience
that I really always rename the bnodes to get G' and BGP'
so that there can never be a bnode label clash in the
graphs and graph patterns that the reasoner is using.

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 20:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT