W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2002

Re: RDF semantics: a question about instances and interpolation lemma

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:21:18 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Cc: chet@watson.ibm.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu

Hi Chet,

At 13:04 02/12/2002 -0500, Chet Murthy wrote:

>[Not sure if this is the right place to send such a note.]

Its not a bad place.  This is a good place for general discussion of rdf 
stuff.  www-rdf-logic@w3.ogr is maybe better for the more formal 
aspects.  If you want to communicate formally with the wg, e.g. if you 
think there is a problem with a spec, www-rdf-comments@w3.org is the place.


>By this definition,
>(1a) eg:a eg:prop1 eg;b.
>(1b) eg:c eg:prop2 eg:d.
>is an instance of
>(2a) _:a eg:prop1 _:b.
>(2b) _:b eg:prop2 _:c.
>(1a) is an instance of (2a) by { _:a -> eg:a, _:b -> eg:b }
>(1b) is an instance of (2b) by { _:b -> eg:c, _:c -> eg:d }
>Clearly, this shouldn't be allowed,

You really need Pat or one of the logicians to answer this question, but 
maybe we can lay some groundwork.  My antenae twitched when I read that 
too, but reading on I figured it was ok.  Can you explain why this 
shouldn't be allowed?  At what step does the interpolation lemma fail?


Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC