- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:58:27 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Let the RIF entailment relationship be R. > > RIF covers (the portion of) F precisely when > > for all l in L and d in D such that E(l,d) is in C > R(M(l),M(d)) = M(E(l,d)) Seems like a perfectly fine definition of the semantic portion of "cover" to me. There were comments at the f2f [*] that there are use cases that require preservation of some inessential differences as well. If we mean that then we'd also need a notion of abstract-syntactic coverage. Dave [*] During the discussion on why "supports monotonic-LT" might be a less useless discriminator than you might think.
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2006 09:58:22 UTC