- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:11:20 -0600
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 8 Nov 2012, at 00:22, Pat Hayes wrote: >> _:x :a ex:Fish . >> >> does not entail >> >> skolem:newname2346 :a ex:Fish . >> >> So any rules that go from a bnode-containing triple to another triple containing the same bnode can't work by going 'through' triples in which the bnode is replaced by a skolemized URI. > > But can't this trivially be solved by saying, “assume a semantics where {_:x ?p ?o} entails {skolem:x ?p ?o} for any x and vice versa”? Well, that is rather like saying that one can get out of debt by saying "assume I have more money". Remember "entails" has a fixed meaning: (A entails B) means that for every interpretation I, if I(A)=true then I(B)=true. If you can find a notion of interpretation which makes this work, then I'd be interested to see it. Pat > > Best, > Richard > > > >> >> Pat >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 8 November 2012 01:11:58 UTC