From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:27:10 -0400 (EDT)

Message-Id: <200106051427.KAA21807@pantheon-po03.its.yale.edu>

To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:27:10 -0400 (EDT)

Message-Id: <200106051427.KAA21807@pantheon-po03.its.yale.edu>

To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

[Drew McDermott] > 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. [Dan Connolly] I don't know why people keep saying that. It's just not so. [Lynn Stein] I don't know why people keep saying that. It's just not so. When Drew says "the obvious way", I don't think he's referring to what Peter wrote. Yes, by the "obvious" way I meant avoiding any reification, and just making the representation of p and q occur unaltered as pieces of the representation of (if p q). So any triple that occurs in p would also occur in (if p q), and hence be asserted when (if p q) was asserted. -- Drew McDermottReceived on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 10:27:19 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:21 UTC
*