Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments

Jos De_Roo wrote:
...
> 
> the points that I wanted to say are:
> 1) there is a set of *entailment rules* (just like in RDFS MT)
> 2) not all triples are necessarily 'top-level' asserted
>    i.e. some triples are kept in nested contexts
>    e.g. above restriction could be an example of that
> 3) the entailment rules match with such contexts and could
>    indeed (also) be used for unasserted triple derivation
> 
> > 2) Were you answering the first or second question of mine above?
> 
> none, Jonathan (I'm ashamed)
> I don't see any guarantee's yet ;-)
> 
> > 3) Is your answer "yes" "no" or "unknown"? You say "well, I think it
> comes
> > down to what you do with what you have derived", help me to understand
> this
> > more concretely -- i.e. so I can include your position in a summary.
> 
> I would refer to my above 3 points
> 

Thanks, Jos (I need these bullet points !)

Does your use of nested contexts and unasserted triples support the need
for this mechanism in OWL, as a solution to Peter's most recent paradox?
(this is turning into the Patel-Schneider paradox -hopefully finite-
set)

I am reading this as yes, but want to confirm.

Jonathan

attached mail follows:

Jos De_Roo wrote:
...
> 
> the points that I wanted to say are:
> 1) there is a set of *entailment rules* (just like in RDFS MT)
> 2) not all triples are necessarily 'top-level' asserted
>    i.e. some triples are kept in nested contexts
>    e.g. above restriction could be an example of that
> 3) the entailment rules match with such contexts and could
>    indeed (also) be used for unasserted triple derivation
> 
> > 2) Were you answering the first or second question of mine above?
> 
> none, Jonathan (I'm ashamed)
> I don't see any guarantee's yet ;-)
> 
> > 3) Is your answer "yes" "no" or "unknown"? You say "well, I think it
> comes
> > down to what you do with what you have derived", help me to understand
> this
> > more concretely -- i.e. so I can include your position in a summary.
> 
> I would refer to my above 3 points
> 

Thanks, Jos (I need these bullet points !)

Does your use of nested contexts and unasserted triples support the need
for this mechanism in OWL, as a solution to Peter's most recent paradox?
(this is turning into the Patel-Schneider paradox -hopefully finite-
set)

I am reading this as yes, but want to confirm.

Jonathan