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

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