- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:26:45 +0100
- To: phayes@ihmc.us
- Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
[...large snip] >>>I did not misread the definition: I suggest that y'all read through >>>the above carefully, and think about it. >> >>We did it carefully. It is easy to see that the latest >>characterisation is correct, see above. >>Convinced? > >No. Well, I can't really add very much here, but in the past I did some RDF and OWL entailment test cases and for the current test cases that I tested it is clearly the case that G simple-entails (G' union S(BGP')) and can only speak from my own implementation experience that I really always rename the bnodes to get G' and BGP' so that there can never be a bnode label clash in the graphs and graph patterns that the reasoner is using. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 20:27:03 UTC