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

incomplete entailments [Was: email straw poll: literal semantics proposals]

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:35:55 +0200
To: "Frank Manola <fmanola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org, "brian_mcbride" <brian_mcbride@hp.com>
Message-ID: <OF9C102753.A7EB3086-ONC1256C4E.00499DD9-C1256C4E.00503144@agfa.be>


Frank, it seems to me a primitive entailment
and as such a basic and core entailment for
a machine to make, but indeed not like NLP
(natural language processing)
Avoiding to make it is like having something
like a hidden C, D or E

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                   
                    Frank Manola                                                                                   
                    <fmanola@mitre       To:     Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>                        
                    .org>                cc:     "Brian McBride <bwm", RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,           
                                          w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org                                            
                    2002-10-10           Subject:     Re: email straw poll: literal semantics proposals            
                    02:39 PM                                                                                       
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                   




Jos--

Can you say a little more about why you don't want to lose this
entailment?  Note: my understanding is that even under F an application
would still be able to access the triples

        :I :love "RDF".
        :You :love "RDF".

and deduce anything it wanted, including

        :I :love _:x.
        :You :love _:x.

(presumably on the basis that the two "RDF" strings *may* have been
meant to refer to the same thing).  It's only entailments directly
defined by the RDF semantics we're talking about here, not additional
determinations that applications may want to make, right?

--Frank

Jos De_Roo wrote:

>
> [sorry to be late, but I had no access in Bristol to my mailbox]
>
> B 5 (for rdf:format xsd:... there are canonical lexical forms)
> C 3 (should we then always say e.g. owl:cardinality xsd:integer"2"?)
> D 2 (meaning is same as C, but less kiss)
> F 0 i.e. I do not want to loose the the entailment
>       :I :love _:x.
>       :You :love _:x.
>     given *nothing* but
>       :I :love "RDF".
>       :You :love "RDF".
>     (ref. meaningful derivation requirement)
>


--
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 10:36:38 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:23 EDT