RE: RDF Semantics: Interpretations and Modelling

RE: RDF Semantics: Interpretations and ModellingPat, this reply brought to
my mind a lovely Sidney Harris' t-shirt that Leslie Lamport showed me for
the first time ten years ago or so (wow, time flies....):
http://www.scienceteecher.com/proof.htm
Can you please give a proof of your entailment? ;)
Thanks,
-M


    Ossi, this is the Bag/Alt issue, raised in May 2002:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0112.html
    AFAIK never replied yet.
    Incidentally, the same wrong argument pointed therein appears again in
the current last call draft.


  Im not sure which 'wrong argument' you are referring to. I stand by
everything I said that is  included in the above-referenced message. In
particular,


  " If
  _:xxx [rdf:type] [rdf:Bag] .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_1] <ex:a> .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_2] <ex:b> .
  >
  > entails
  >
  > _:xxx [rdf:_1] <ex:b> .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_2] <ex:a> .
  >
  > then it also must entail
  >
  > _:xxx [rdf:type] [rdf:Bag] .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_1] <ex:a> .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_2] <ex:b> .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_1] <ex:b> .
  > _:xxx [rdf:_2] <ex:a> .
  >
  > and by suitable reordering, it will entail that ALL members of the
  > bag are in ALL positions."


  is a correct argument, and your response to it is incorrect.


  Pat






--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  IHMC                                       (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
home
  40 South Alcaniz St.                       (850)202 4416   office
  Pensacola                                 (850)202 4440   fax
  FL 32501                                     (850)291 0667    cell
  phayes@ai.uwf.edu            http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
  s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam