W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

simple entailment testcase [Was: Re: reification test case]

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:00:57 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF8D428F35.0C069ED0-ONC1256B5A.008342D3@bayer-ag.com>

[...]
>>and even
>>
>>   <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> _:s1 .
>>   _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> .
>>
>>is *not* entailing
>>
>>   _:s2 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> .
>
>That should be entailed, again by anyone's standards. It is always OK
>to say an existential statement again using a different bound
>variable, even inside the same graph.
>
>>
>>but
>>
>>   _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> .
>>   _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> .
>>
>>is entailing
>>
>>   _:s2 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> .
>
>?? Why is this different from the previous case??

OK, it's now fixed in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#R29038

--
Jos
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 19:01:27 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:08 EDT