- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:33:35 +0200
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[...]
> 9. issues#owlDisjunction
> 10. note new issue; enumerate known options; initial straw poll
In
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0414.html
I might have expressed a preference for entailment, but now I would prefer
to keep the "constructive logic" approach as is; this is based on
implementation
experience from last weekend where we could indeed run such entailment
approach, but then CONSTRUCT result should be something what I posted at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2005Sep/0010.html
which is not simply a set of triples (is about necessities versus
possibities).
In our implementation I can still have that FOL behaviour when I
*explicitly* assert
{WHERE} => {}
but then would just derive inconsistencies i.e. empty set of triples.
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 12 September 2005 20:34:36 UTC