Re: yet another sidetrack on what a URI identifies

>>> As TimBL mentioned, cwm implements the integration
>>> of all this stuff... connecting KR to WWW. The
>>> log:semantics primitive in cwm is a simpler model
>>> than the 9711theory/HTTP model... but I think
>>
>> right, I think I understand that after today
>> and we are really mistaken when not making the
>> distinction between e.g. the doc:Work and the log:Formula
>> (that's quite a shock and I'm hoping to repair soon...)
>>
>
>I haven't looked at what you have done there, but
>if you have just coalesced the notions of doc:Work
>and log:Formula, for example by using
><foo>  :says  { whatever } rather than
>[ is log:semantics of <foo> ] log:includes { whatever }
>then that is just a greater form of simplification,
>which is still a valid system.  It doesn't give you
>such a access to what is going on.
>It is just like the simplification which
>log:semantics is when it doesn't model all
>of the HTTP protocol.

right, OK, I see
some time ago we descibed a testcase as

 (<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom>
  <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>
  <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema>) log:implies
  <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> .

(we also tried with namespace entailment using empty fragments)
but we now have it as

[ is log:conjunction of
   ( [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom> ]
     [ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> ]
     [ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ] ) ]
log:implies
     [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> ] .

because we indeed need the page withe the
formulas written on it


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