From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:35:34 +0100

To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Message-Id: <200302012135.34838.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:35:34 +0100

To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Message-Id: <200302012135.34838.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> [wasn't completely awake when I wrote earlier reply; hope I'm now] I don't think I am counting on it ! :) > given that > the range of p is one of 1,2,3,4 > the range of p is one of 3,4,5,6 > the range of p is one of 2,4,6,8 > then it is the case that > (or we could entail that) * empty * > which is consistent with any consistent system hence what? I started with an inconsistent set of premises and you split that into two consistent subsets and worked on them independently. I deduced falsity from my inconsistent premises, and then proved whatever theorem I wanted. Jos: | I believe that this is not following from AS&S | at least I can't conclude it from such piece as | if E is rdfs:range | then for x element of IOP, y element of IOC U IDC | <x,y> element of EXTi(Si(E)) iff | <w,z> element of EXTi(x) -> z element of CEXTi(y) | which we interpret as | {?x rdfs:range ?y. ?w ?x ?z} => {?z rdf:type ?y}. | {?z rdfs:subClassOf ?y. ?x rdfs:range ?z} => {?x rdfs:range ?y}. If those last two rules are not in the direct semantics then that looks like a bug with them to me. (I haven't looked at section 3 much though). (They are in RDF semantics, if I have understood correctly, maybe not the latter). JeremyReceived on Saturday, 1 February 2003 15:34:39 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC
*