W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 19:15:57 +0200
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE8AC520E.011BF4B5-ONC1256BB1.005DD604@agfa.be>

> > 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.

I would say yes
but what is that -hopefully finite- set?

--
Jos
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 13:16:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT