W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:31:20 -0400
Message-ID: <20110407.093120.1419633446400797919.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Well, it is possible to derive contradictions in RDFS all by itself, so
the answer to your question is obvious.


From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Subject: Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:02:31 -0500

> Apologies for top-posting,  writing from my phone. 
> I generally agree and have been thinking about the minimum that you have
> to take from owl to be able to derive contradictions using rdfs. The use
> case for this is debugging - detecting modelling errors. I think
> owl:disjointFrom is in the list. SameAs definitely isn't. Despite its
> clear analytical meaning for all practical purposes it means
> RelevantlySimilarTo and should not be taken literally except perhaps in
> some very well defined limited domains...
> Cheers
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 13:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:05 UTC