Re: yet another non-entailment (was Re: another revision of semantics document)

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: yet another non-entailment (was Re: another revision of  semantics  document)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:04:15 -0400

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't see how they are fixable.
> >
> 
> Related question then would:
> 
> John rdf:type owl:Thing .
> 
> foo owl:sameClassAs _:x
> _:x owl:oneOf _:l .
> _:l owl:first John .
> _:l owl:rest owl:nil .
> 
> entail
> 
> John rdf:type foo .
> 

Yes, this is entailed (in every proposal).

> If not, that would (obviously) be a showstopper nonentailment. Otherwise are
> you saying that we are back to the solipsistic model?

Well, I haven't seen a definition of how the solipsistic model is supposed
to work, so I can't say whether we are back there.

> Jonathan

peter