On 2002-01-30 13:51, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote: >> Is the above now clearer? > > Clearer, but I don't accept that there is no problem with self-entailment > in TDL as currently presented. > > I think TDL possibly can be fixed (and have sent some ideas to Jememy), but > until it is fixed it isn't in my mind a fully fledged proposal. Fair enough. Though I'd very much like your comments to my question in my MT commments to Pat, that insofar as the actual denoted values are concerned, I wonder if either TDL or S can ensure entailment, since RDF is stuck with non-canonical lexical forms. C.f. the last comment in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0400.html Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 07:51:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:30 GMT