Re: Building on RDF

Dan Connolly wrote:

> Drew McDermott wrote:
> [...]
> > As RDF stands, the obvious way of representing (if p q)
> > has the drawback that we could infer p and q from (if p q) alone,
> > because RDF allows the inference of all the triples of a formula from
> > any formula containing them.
>
> I don't know why people keep saying that. It's just not so.

Whoa, wait a sec.

When Drew says "the obvious way", I don't think he's referring to what Peter
wrote.  In that sense, I think Drew's right.  Peter, on the other hand, is
wrong if he thinks that the RDF below implies (loves John Mary).

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:

> > ><rdf:type x OR>
> > ><component x y>
> > ><component x z>
> > >
> > ><rdf:type y rdf:Statement>
> > ><rdf:subject y John>
> > ><rdf:predicate y loves>
> > ><rdf:object y Mary>
> > >
> > ><rdf:type z rdf:Statement>
> > ><rdf:subject z John>
> > ><rdf:predicate z loves>
> > ><rdf:object z Susan>
> > >
> > ><loves Bill Susan>
> > >
> > ><rdf:type Bill Person>
> > ><rdf:type John Person>
> > ><rdf:type Susan Person>
> > ><rdf:type Mary Person>