- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:35:53 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian, I agree with your analysis. #g -- At 09:37 AM 10/1/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >At 12:43 30/09/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>This simple entailment test came to me while formulating some words about >>datatyping... >> >> ex:prop rdf:range xsd:integer . >> ex:subj ex:prop "10" . >> >>entails/doesnot entail: >> >> ex:subj ex:prop xsd:integer"10" . > >So let me check my understanding here. With tidy semantics, this >entailment does not hold, because if it did, then given: > > <a> <b> "10" . > <c> <d> "10" . > >we entail: > > <a> <b> _:l . > <c> <d> _:l . > >If we now add to the premises > > <b> rdfs:range xsd:string . > <d> rdfs:range xsd:decimal . > >then the entailment would no longer hold. > >That would be non-monotonic and monotonicity is a must for the model theory. > >Brian ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:07:40 UTC