Sean Bechhofer wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Jos De_Roo wrote: > > > Sean - can you explain why > > oiled:V16448 rdf:type oiled:C122. > > in description-logic/Manifest208 ? > > Quick answer: because the reasoner says so! :-))). Seriously, though, this > is one of those tests that probably goes past the point where one (or at > least where *I*) can understand it without machine help. I'll take a > look if I get a chance, but I'm not hopeful. I understand; for instance for description-logic/Manifest206 it took me 6 hours with paper and pencil to figure out why some triple (forgot which one) was the case :-( > This was one of the tests that has been translated from an original > collection that were run against a number of provers, so I'd be > *reasonably* confident that the test premises/conclusions are right. > Having said that, I note that our FO based implementation has failed to > find a proof, so it is probably worth further investigation before > approving this one.... Well maybe striking oiled:V16448 rdf:type oiled:C122. from the conclusion works?? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2003 10:47:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:43 GMT