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

Re: Entailment versus implication

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:50:34 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B88DC2FA.DF64%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-11 17:35, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:


>> So, when folks say that
>> 
>> _:B ex:father #Bob .
>> _:B ex:gender ex:Male .
>> _:G ex:father #Bob .
>> _:G ex:gender ex:Female .
>> 
>> entails
>> 
>> _:B ex:gender ex:Female .
>> _:G ex:gender ex:Male .
>> 
>> I start to wonder if we are all talking about the same thing.
>> 
>> Certainly the first set of triples do *not* imply the latter
>> pair of triples. How could they?
> 
> Well, it goes outside RDF, but one could argue that if it is known
> that ex:father is functional, ie people only have one father, then
> 
> _:B ex:father #Bob .
> _:G ex:father #Bob .
> 
> together entail _:G = :_B,

OK, here's where you lost me. How does the fact that _:G
and _:B both have the same father, even if it were known that
ex:father were functional, imply that _:G and _:B are
the same resource?

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 11:49:15 EST

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