Looking at the latest editors draft. Jeremy: >> >> That version suffers the following defects vis-a-vis simple completeness >> >> <eg:a> <eg:b> <eg:a> . >> >> entails >> >> _:a <eg:b> _:b . >> >> but this cannot be shown. >> >> Similarly >> >> _:a <eg:b> _:a . >> >> entails >> >> _:a <eg:b> _:b . >> >> >> but this cannot be shown. Pat: > > > Right, it doesnt claim to be complete for simple entailment, only a > complete rendering down of vocabulary entailment to simple entailment. > To check simple entailment you have to refer to the relevant section and > it tells you to use the interpolation lemma. > Why do you prefer the wording in the editors draft over the wording in >> >> However your wording in msg >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0202 >> >> is, I believe, satisfactory. >> Although I agree your statements of the RDF RDFS entailment lemmas is robust against this issue. JeremyReceived on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 15:31:47 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:41 EDT