- From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:03:43 -0400
- To: <ww@styx.org>
- CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: William Waites <ww@styx.org> Subject: Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:40:27 -0500 > * [2011-04-07 12:28:03 -0400] Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> écrit: > > ] Yes, if you can derive contradictions in RDFS all by itself then nothing > ] from OWL needs to be added to RDFS to be able to derive contractions > ] in the extended RDFS. > > Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was, to derive > useful contradictions from real data. It isn't clear to me > that the pathological examples would appear in real data > and the one example I've seen of a useful contradiction > relies on xsd reasoning. > > So you're strictly correct, but it isn't a very useful or > interesting result in my opinion. > > -w Aah, you want *useful* answers! Well, that depends on just what you consider to be useful, doesn't it? Please let us know your definition of useful, then. peter
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 18:04:49 UTC