Re: Dark triples, current closure / entailment rules, can someone clarify?

At 16:59 25/06/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>At 10:19 AM 6/25/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>I fail to follow why this kind of example would lead you to that 
>>conclusion. BUt in any case there are other strong reasons for not coming 
>>to that conclusion, which we have gone over now several times. If there 
>>is any way to assert darkness, then there is no way, in practice, to 
>>avoid nonmonotonicity. ...
>
>You say _no_ way, but I thought that a syntax extension (in the graph 
>syntax) was a possibility.  I agree it has the other disadvantages you 
>mention, but I want to be clear what our *possible* choices are.

I thought we made this choice at the face to face.  The deciding factor as 
I recall was the argument that we did not want to burden users with having 
to remember which triples to darken.

Brian