- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:18:57 -0600
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@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')) Right, no argument. My point was however that it may not entail (G' union S(BGP)). I wouldnt be surprised if it did this in all the test cases we have so far, but theres a case in my message where it doesn't. >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. I agree that in practice it is quite clear what to do. All we are arguing about is how to phrase the definitions so that <what to do> will indeed be clear and unambiguous. The intention of having all this priming in the definitions is to ensure that *however* you choose the bnodes, things will still work out correctly, so that a hypothetical anti-josderoo demon couldn't possibly implement it wrong even if they tried. Pat > >-- >Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 22:19:36 UTC