Re: Cut back RDFCore semantics doc

> " We believe that these rules are complete in the following sense: if S 
> rdf(s)-entails E then there is a graph which can be derived from S+the 
> rdf(+rdfs) axiomatic triples by these rules which simply entails E. 
> However, this has not been conclusively established at the time of 
> writing."
> 
> Note that this does not mention closures, so the question of whether or 
> not they are finite does not come up.
> 
> This is done in a modified version: 
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_appenda.html
> dated 18a June
> 
> I will try to propose resolutions for the outstanding semantic issues 
> asap, but I may have to get on a plane soon.
> 
> Pat


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.

However your wording in msg

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0202

is, I believe, satisfactory.

...


The same phrase could be used to conjecture the completeness of the simple 
entailment rules.

Again, stylistically I dislike the phrase "at the time of writing" in the 
statement of your conjecture. (Take it or leave it)

Jeremy