- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:25:42 +0100 (BST)
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Pat Hayes wrote:
> An incomplete but readable draft of the MT with containers and
> reification added and tidy literals can be found at
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/w3-rdf-mt-draft-42402.html. @@
> indicates comments or work to be done. I know it is scruffy, bear
> with me.
Frivolous comment: I used to have a somwhat unflattering nickname
("weasel")*, so to read of their demise was quite a blow :-)
Anyroadup: I was thinking about this yesterday when sketching out a
separate unix-style filter to output the rdf(s)-closure of an ntriples
document.
However, it is easy to see that the rules will indeed terminate
on any finite RDF graph, since there are only finitely many
triples that can be formed from a given finite vocabulary.
Unfortunately, this isn't true when you include closure rules for RDF
containers - since any graph presumaby entails (for example)
<rdf:_n> <rdf:type> <rdf:Property>
for any value of n in <rdf:_n>. It's simple to say "throw in all of
these" (I'd be happy with this) but a naive approach to implementing
Pat's closure rules will take a looooong time :-)
jan
PS. This isn't too much of a hardship for pure entailment tests, since
there's an obvious getout.
* got it off a guy named "Womble", go figure.
--
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Theory and practice _are_ the same thing. In theory.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 05:26:48 UTC