W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: correction RE: The Ugly Test

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>

> [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).

Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 15:34:39 GMT

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