- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:15:57 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk
Pat Hayes wrote: > Hmm. But it also means that any RDF graph *entails* the same graph with > an arbitrary number of these triples added. So all graphs entail > themselves with random "comments" attached in random "places". This does > not seem like what one would want a reasoning engine to do, so how does > one give a semantic justification for not allowing it? > If annotations are meaningless (as some people claim) then adding annotations does not change the meaning, and a reasoning engine that adds an annotation e.g. eg:eg rdfs:comment "The reasoning engine loaded this at 6.34 pm" . then so be it. It is at least arguable - if people really want that, then I would like that to be clear. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 14:16:40 UTC