Re: objection to proposed close of pfps-05

* 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?

Dan