- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:10:53 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Summary: I doubt you can make clearer tests of this issue than the one peter >proposes - in particular Jan's proposed test is incorrect. > > >while sympathetic to Jan's desire for meangingful test cases, I note that >peter's test (particualrly the choice of conclusion) depends on a somewhat >non-obvious technicality. > >false does-not-simply-entail G > >for any non-empty G, because G uses at least one URI which is not in all >interpretations of false. No, it does. A entails B means (forall interpretations I (if I satisfies A then I satisfies B)) so if A is false then this is always trivially true; so false entails anything, no matter what vocabulary it uses. I removed the vocabulary restriction on entailment at Herman's insistence: he was right. Pat >Thus the test case needs to show an inconsistency, followed by garbage using >the same vocab as the premise (or the central RDF vocabulary). (And we have >rdf-entailment), ditto rdfs entailment). > >Peter's choice of garbage out > >rdf:type rdf:type rdf:type > >seems to be about as best as you can do to have obvious garabge given the >constraint > >Jeremy > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 10:11:01 UTC