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

Re: [closed] Re: proposed test of RDFS entailment rules

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:31:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031031.173147.86416226.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: [closed] Re: proposed test of RDFS entailment rules
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:13:03 -0600

> Peter:
> 
> with reference to your last call-2 comment
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0026.html
> 
> archived at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph
> 
> the WG proposes to accept your comment and in response make the 
> following changes:
> 
> 1. To add an RDFS test case with your premise set and with the 
> conclusion being a manifest document
> <test:conclusionDocument>
>        <test:False-Document/>
> </test:conclusionDocument>
> abbreviated as 'FALSE', which is the form already used in the 
> test-cases document to indicate the presence of an inconsistency; cf. 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test006.nt
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes-intensional/test002.nt
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test010.nt

Hmm.  These pointers point to particular N-triples files, not to anything
like False.

> 2. To add a test case illustrating the principle that an 
> inconsistency entails anything, using your conclusion:
> 
> FALSE
> entails
> <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> .
> 
> Both of the above are positive entailment tests.

Hmm.  I am not ecstatic about this, but I could live with it.

> To clarify, we accept that this entailment is true; however, in the hope
> of keeping the distinction between two concepts clear, we think that it
> would be more usefully illustrative to break the test case into the two
> parts as indicated.

I am not convinced of this, but I can live with it.

> The point of these is to illustrate that any inconsistent premise can be
> used to entail any conclusion, and avoid giving the impression that 
> this behavior is special to this particular case.
> 
> Please reply, copying to www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to indicate whether 
> this response is acceptable.
> 
> Pat Hayes
> 
> PS. We also note, in case this might be relevant, that the latest 
> editor's draft of the semantics document mentions this case and gives 
> a syntactic criterion for recognizing the inconsistency within RDFS, 
> with a derivation using the rules in that document.

peter
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 17:35:04 GMT

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