Re: entailing that a quoted triple is false

> On 31. Aug 2024, at 19:08, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 8/30/24 08:43, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>> Am 30. August 2024 14:11:31 MESZ schrieb "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>:
>>> Is anyone in the working group actually wanting the graph
>>> :a rdf:reifies < :b :c :d > .
>>> to entail that :b :c :d is false?
>> not "false", but also not true in the graph. you should know the difference
> 
> There are only four possibilities - entails false, entails true, entails neither, and entailing both.   Entailing not true is either nonsensical or entailing false.

is "entailing not true" the same as "not true in the graph"?

> 
>>> (I don't remember anyone wanting that.  I don't even remember any input to the working group advocating that.)
>>> 
>>> If not, then arguments that include statements to that effect are not persuasive.
>>> 
>>> peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/30/24 06:04, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> However, I also think that all those nuances still fall into two main categories, namely if the annotated triple term is meant to be true in the graph or not:
>>>> - most of them are meant to be true (see use cases, see real world data)
>>>> - those that aren't can’t be introduced first and then taken back (that would jeopardize monotonicity)
>>> [...]
>>> 
> 
> 
> peter
> 

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com

Received on Saturday, 31 August 2024 18:09:47 UTC