W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2003

[closed] Re: proposed test of RDFS entailment rules

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:13:03 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f13bbc8383b1aa2@[10.1.31.1]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Peter:

with reference to your last call-2 comment

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0026.html

archived at

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph

the WG proposes to accept your comment and in response make the 
following changes:

1. To add an RDFS test case with your premise set and with the 
conclusion being a manifest document
<test:conclusionDocument>
       <test:False-Document/>
</test:conclusionDocument>
abbreviated as 'FALSE', which is the form already used in the 
test-cases document to indicate the presence of an inconsistency; cf. 
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test006.nt
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes-intensional/test002.nt
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test010.nt

2. To add a test case illustrating the principle that an 
inconsistency entails anything, using your conclusion:

FALSE
entails
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> .

Both of the above are positive entailment tests.

To clarify, we accept that this entailment is true; however, in the hope
of keeping the distinction between two concepts clear, we think that it
would be more usefully illustrative to break the test case into the two
parts as indicated.

The point of these is to illustrate that any inconsistent premise can be
used to entail any conclusion, and avoid giving the impression that 
this behavior is special to this particular case.

Please reply, copying to www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to indicate whether 
this response is acceptable.

Pat Hayes

PS. We also note, in case this might be relevant, that the latest 
editor's draft of the semantics document mentions this case and gives 
a syntactic criterion for recognizing the inconsistency within RDFS, 
with a derivation using the rules in that document.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 31 October 2003 16:13:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 31 October 2003 16:13:13 EST