Re: substantive semantics change?

[[
Even the empty graph has a large number of rdfs-entailments which
are not rdf-entailments, for example all triples of the form

xxx rdf:type rdfs:Resource .

are true in all rdfs-interpretations of any vocabulary containing xxx.
]]

> *empty*
>   entails
> rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:Resource

For the entailment to hold, all interpretations of empty must make the 
consequences true.

There are (or at least were) interpretations of empty which do not include 
rdf:_1 in their vocabulary. For such interpretations the consequences are 
false and the entailment does not (or at least did not) hold.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 08:06:04 UTC