- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:26:09 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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? Oh, I see. I read that as _:B and _:G were both Bob's father, not the other way round. I think we agree on the logic now, yes? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 16:26:13 UTC