- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:51:47 -0600
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: andy.seaborne@hp.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>On 13 Feb 2006, at 22:12, Pat Hayes wrote: >>-------- >>Definition: E-entailment Regime >> >>An E-entailment regime is a relation between a subset of RDF graphs >>and a subset of basic graph patterns. >> >>A basic graph pattern in the range of an E-entailment is called >>well- formed for the E-entailment. >>-------- >> >>Was this in version 1.623 when we took the vote?? If so, I >>apologize for not noticing it at the time, but this is broken. >>Entailment is a relationship between graphs, because *by >>definition* it refers to truth of the graph in an interpretation. >>Patterns don't have truthvalues in interpretations. So what it >>should say is that an E-entailment regime is a relation between RDF >>graphs, defined on a subset of RDF graphs. The graphs in the subset >>are called well-formed for the entailment regime. (I'd avoid the >>use of 'range' here, see below.) > >You're right. > >""" >Definition: E-entailment Regime >An E-entailment regime is a binary relation between subsets of RDF graphs. >A graph in the range of an E-entailment is called well-formed for >the E-entailment. >""" > >(we need range here since the domain may not be the same as the >range -- e.g., OWL-DL query answering). Ah, I see. But there are expository reasons for not using that very word without explanation, see my earlier mail. Pat >--e. > >Attachment converted: betelguese2:smime 27.p7s ( / ) (00237A7A) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tuesday, 14 February 2006 14:51:59 UTC