W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:03:43 -0400
Message-ID: <20110407.140343.506975320095267585.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <ww@styx.org>
CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Subject: Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:40:27 -0500

> * [2011-04-07 12:28:03 -0400] Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> écrit:
> ] Yes, if you can derive contradictions in RDFS all by itself then nothing
> ] from OWL needs to be added to RDFS to be able to derive contractions
> ] in the extended RDFS.
> Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was, to derive
> useful contradictions from real data. It isn't clear to me
> that the pathological examples would appear in real data
> and the one example I've seen of a useful contradiction
> relies on xsd reasoning.
> So you're strictly correct, but it isn't a very useful or
> interesting result in my opinion.
> -w

Aah, you want *useful* answers!

Well, that depends on just what you consider to be useful, doesn't it?
Please let us know your definition of useful, then.

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 18:04:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC