- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:52:11 -0500
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>
(with apologies, a message delayed for a few days, while my laptop was
repaired)
> I don't necessarily mean to suggest that we go back through all this
> again, but the pertinent threads where we discussed this were places
> like the following, in case anyone wants to go through the archives
> (including de re/de dicto, Superman, and the whole nine yards):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0157.html
A thread which argues philosophically about the identity of URIs but
does not
discuss allowed entailments.
There was a lack of test case. One test case is whether (writing =
for daml:equivelentTo)
the following is a valid entailment:
:Superman = :ClarkeKent.
Lois :believes :s .
:s rdf:subject :Superman .
:s rdf:predicate rdf:type.
:s rdf:object :Strongman.
_________________________
Lois :believes :s .
:s rdf:subject : ClarkeKent .
:s rdf:predicate rdf:type.
:s rdf:object :Strongman.
This follows from a current axiom of = that
{ ?x ?p ?y. ?y = ?z } => { ?x ?p ?z }.
This settles the question as to whether quoting would matter or not.
Clearly quoting solves the problem.
:Superman = :ClarkeKent.
Lois :believes :s .
:s rdf:subject2 ":Superman" .
:s rdf:predicate2 "rdf:type".
:s rdf:object2 ":Strongman".
does not allow that entailment.
One has then a
Patrick and janet accepted the problem but didn't see how using literals
helped.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0314.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0239.html
>
> --Frank
>
> --
> 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 Monday, 3 March 2003 20:52:13 UTC