>Jeremy: >[...] >> I don't follow the transitivity argument ... >> >> G entails H if every interpretation of G is an interpretation of H. >> >> this is clearly transitive, and a "counter-example" like >> >> *empty* >> entails >> rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:Resource >> entails >> rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty >> >> is flawed because the first entailment is false according to the LC2 >> semantics. > >In the LC2 semantics I read > >[[ >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. >]] > >so this is about the *empty* premise graph and > >[[ >A set of names is referred to as a vocabulary. The vocabulary >of a graph is the set of names which occur as the subject, >predicate or object of any triple in the graph. Note that >URI references which occur inside typed literals are not >required to be in the vocabulary of the graph. >]] > >so I guess xxx is in the vocabulary of the conclusion graph >and so I don't see where the above entailment is flawed... > Yes, quite. Pat >-- >Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/phayesReceived on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:06:06 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:06:08 EST