- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:46:07 +0100
- To: axel@polleres.net
- CC: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <47CD6EBF.80907@inf.unibz.it>
Axel Polleres wrote: > Jos de Bruijn wrote: >> >> >> Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> >>> Jos de Bruijn wrote: >>> >>>> So, we really want to take into account all IRIs representing a >>>> particular domain element. Since this is a set, we would need to >>>> use a built-in predicates. For example: >>>> >>>> "Let I be an interpretation, let u be an element in the domain of I, >>>> and >>>> let {i1, ..., in} be the set of IRIs that denote u, i.e. for each ij >>>> (1 <= j <= n) IC(ij)=u. IR(iriToString)(u,"ij")=t for (1 <= j <= >>>> n); IR(iriToString)(u,s)=f for every element s not in {"i1", ..., >>>> "in"}." >>>> >>>> The rule set >>>> iriToString("b"^^rif:iri,"b"^^xsd:string) >>>> >>>> is satisfied in every RIF interpretation. >>> >>> But in any semantic web context one couldn't determine the truth or >>> falsity of: >>> >>> iriToString("foo"^^rif:iri,"bar"^^xsd:string) > > > >> right. In some interpretations the formula might be true, whereas in >> other interpretations it would be false. So, it would not be entailed >> by the empty rule set. > > but it would be entailed if the remaining theory entails > > "foo"^^rif:iri = "bar"^^iri > > right? Yes. Jos > > >> Best, Jos >> >>> >>> Dave >> > > -- debruijn@inf.unibz.it Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- One man that has a mind and knows it can always beat ten men who haven't and don't. -- George Bernard Shaw
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 15:46:23 UTC