- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 14 Dec 2001 11:32:48 -0600
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 11:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > The Basic Problem: > > SWOL is supposed to be an extension of RDF. As such, the semantics of SWOL > should be upward compatible with the semantics of RDF. That is, that SWOL > entailment reduces to RDF entailment on RDF knowledge bases. Why do you say that? I'd say SWOL entailment reduces to FOL entailment (less the excluded middle). p.s. this mailer doesn't seem to be doing The Right Thing with reply-to. Sorry. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 12:32:55 UTC