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

Re: entailment-from-inconsistent-graph [was: proposed test of RDFS entailment rules]

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:17:18 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDC0BA950.F0FBD864-ONC1256DC1.0079022E-C1256DC1.007A7143@agfa.be>


What a coincidence - while sitting in a plane this evening
I did't think to implement a "ex contradictione quodlibet".
The premise graphs are assumed to be the case unless they
can be proven to be inconsistent and then we just say so
and don't explicitly use them further. So we can't
run that testcase.


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                                          
                      Brian McBride                                                                                                       
                      <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com        To:       "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>                      
                      >                           cc:       www-rdf-comments@w3.org                                                       
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  entailment-from-inconsistent-graph [was: proposed test of RDFS entailment     
                      www-rdf-comments-req         rules]                                                                                 
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                          
                      2003-10-15 03:37 PM                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                          





Peter,

The WG were unable to discuss this suggestion before publishing the 2nd
last call documents.  I propose to track this as a 2nd last call comment:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph


Brian




Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I propose that the following be a positive entailment test in the RDF
test
> suite.  This is a valid RDFS entailment (modulo typing errors), but is
not
> a consequence of the current RDFS entailment rules.
>
> Premise
>
> <http://example.org/prop> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> .
> <http://example.org/foo> <http://example.org/prop> "<"^^<
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> .
>
> Conclusion
>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> .
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 18:17:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT