W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: objection to proposed close of pfps-05

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:58 -0400
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030822135158.GI23654@w3.org>

* pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> [2003-08-14 21:06-0700]
> >The current state of affairs with respect to the RDFS entailment rules and
> >the RDFS entailment lemma is not acceptable to me.
> >
> >The RDFS entailment rules are not a complete characterization of
> >rdfs-entailment.
> To repeat, the sense of 'complete' which makes this assertion true 
> has never been used in any version of the document.  You have had 
> innumerable opportunities to comment on or object to this design 
> before and at LC, so I do not consider that to raise this issue now, 
> for the first time, is reasonable or acceptable.
> >The RDFS entailment lemma has been changed in a manner unacceptable to me.
> I presume that you are referring to the restriction to consistent 
> antecedents. If so, then I am afraid that you will have remain 
> dissatisfied, as the rules were always designed with this condition 
> in mind; it was not stated explicitly because I had failed to note 
> that a graph could be RDFS-inconsistent, so thought that the 
> condition was satisfied vacuously.  Making this assumption explicit 
> is not a change, in my view.
> I note that one could obtain a complete set of rules which would not 
> need this condition, by adding a rule of the form
> xxx ppp "sss"^^rdf:XMLliteral .
> ppp rdfs:range rdf:XMLLiteral .
> |-
> yyy qqq zzz .
> where sss is any string which is not a well-formed XML literal 
> string.  However, this rule would be of no practical use or 
> theoretical interest; it is like the rule of contradiction in a 
> natural deduction system. I see no purpose in displaying this shallow 
> kind of logical erudition in a normative standard document

Perhaps we could note the objection for the record and move on?

Received on Friday, 22 August 2003 11:03:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:21 UTC