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

Re: correction RE: The Ugly Test

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:27:03 +0100
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA98ECC12.4A81AB90-ONC1256CC1.0006B926-C1256CC1.0007F9E0@agfa.be>

You are right Jeremy, I'm completely wrong
(even in my punctuation as Peter pointed out)
(this was a terrible day)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    Jeremy Carroll                                                                                     
                    <jjc@hpl.hp.com>         To:     www-webont-wg@w3.org                                              
                    Sent by:                 cc:                                                                       
                    www-webont-wg-requ       Subject:     Re: correction RE: The Ugly Test                             
                    2003-02-01 09:35                                                                                   

> [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.

| 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

Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 20:27:58 UTC

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