- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:46:23 -0500
- To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- Cc: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Apr 7, 2011, at 12:40 PM, William Waites wrote: > * [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. Contradictions are like smoke, they can spread through unexpected cracks. If you have a contradictory set, there is a good chance that it will be detected by a reasonably complete reasoner, but it might not show up in the way you expect. There is a famous anecdote about Russell, who was challenged, given the contradiction 0=1, to prove that he was the Pope. As he said: if 1=0, then 2=1; the Pope and I are two; therefore, the Pope and I are one. Pat > > So you're strictly correct, but it isn't a very useful or > interesting result in my opinion. > > -w > -- > William Waites <mailto:ww@styx.org> > http://river.styx.org/ww/ <sip:ww@styx.org> > F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB 3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 21:47:18 UTC