- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:12:14 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick Stickler wrote: > Yes, I agree that the entailment holds. > No, I don't think it is very useful as a test case. > It shows a non-trivial interaction between the definition of the datatype and entailment. This is crucially different from other entailments that we have approved for out test cases. Jeremy >># eg:foo rdfs:range xsd:boolean . >># range not needed for entailment. >><a:a> eg:foo "true"^^xsd:boolean . >><a:a> eg:foo "false"^^xsd:boolean . >><a:uri> rdf:type xsd:boolean . >> >>entails >> >><a:a> eg:foo <a:uri> . >> >> >>Description: >> >>We don't know which value <a:uri> has, but since it belongs to a finite >>class, and both members of that class are in the eg:foo relationship to >><a:a>, then <a:uri> must be. >>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 03:12:26 UTC