W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2001

Re: extra axiom?

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:47:22 +0100
To: timbl@w3.org
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF5552ABF8.C7D218FE-ON41256AD2.003A5CE9@bayer-ag.com>


> Why do you do the RULE7 a rdfs:Resource. thing anyway?
>
> How do you use that?

we were thinking about a proposal for RDF/RDFS entailment tests
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0322.html

and Pat suggested
[[
  > OK, great. Suggestion: how about showing the *proofs* of the
  > entailments in some form? For rdf, this could be simply the
  > intermediate subgraph of the (merge of the) antecedent(s) which
  > generalizes to the consequent graph. For the rdfs cases it could
  > include the rules used to generate the relevant part of the rdfs
  > closure, with references to the numbers in the MT table (?)
  >
  > If this would be a lot of work to generalize, then never mind; but I
  > think it might make it easier to see what is going on, and it would
  > certainly emphasise the difference between (and relationships
  > between) rdf  and rdfs entailments.
]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0324.html

Because Pat talked about "references to the numbers in the MT table"
we found that the easiest thing to do (and fitting with
"the so called proof thing is a SOUND ARGUMENT").
So it is just used for that purpose
and indeed it requires
====
this log:forAll :s :p :o.
{ :s :p :o } log:implies { :s a rdfs:Resource }.
====
or maybe we have to find another predicate which is true

--
Jos
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 06:52:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:14 GMT