- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:38:44 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>
At 02:52 PM 1/30/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>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
Unfortunately the question doesn't make sense to me -- entailment is a
relationship between graphs, not something that happens to the values in
(or denoted by) a graph.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 11:04:25 UTC