Re: problems with simple entailment rules

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: problems with simple entailment rules
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 20:30:53 -0700

[...]

> >>  And, in addition, it says explicitly that the rule as stated is not
> >>  exactly equivalent to the instance lemma, but that a modification of
> >>  it- which it describes - is.  I see no problem with this.
> >
> >I do.  The modification is not described in sufficient detail to determine
> >exactly what the rule set is.
> 
> It is described perfectly clearly: modifying the rules to allow new 
> blank nodes to be allocated to existing blank nodes. The change to 
> the literal statement of the rule, using the textual conventions 
> indicated in the immediately preceding section, would be to replace 
> vvv by xxx in se1 and bbb by uuu in se2. This seems to me to be 
> obvious.

I do not see this as obvious to everyone.  

[...]

> Pat

Peter F. Patel-Schneider