Seth: I still fail to see why it is important for us to classify entailments. It's just going to over complicate stuff needlessly. If my agent knows the rules for rdfs:subClass, than it can arrive at legitimate entailments, Pat: There is no universal overriding notion of 'legitimate' entailment, is why. I agree it complicates things, but I see no way around the fact that life is complicated. Seth: Life is complicated, agreed. Consider the graph: <ex:Jane> <rdf:type> <ex:Woman>. <ex:Woman> <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:Human>. <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:comment> "Indicates membership of a class". <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:rule> "(=> (subClass ?SUBCLASS ?CLASS) (forall (?INST) (=> (rdf:type ?INST ?SUBCLASS) (rdf:type ?INST ?CLASS))))". Given that graph, do you agree that some agent could calucate that "<ex:Jane> <rdf:type> <ex:Human>." ?? If so, then what kind of entailment is that, RDF, or RDFS, or is it EX, or is it RDF+EX+RDFS ? What are we to use that classification for? In other words what is the actual utility of that kind of thinking? .... I think I'm gonna keep asking that question untill I get an answer. Seth RussellReceived on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:44:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:13 GMT