- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:28:14 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, dreer@fh-furtwangen.de
On Jun 23, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] >> Key is the slipping in of "ground". > > No. For query answering only ground entailment is relevant.\ Interesting presumption. >>> entailments for both >>> semantics are *equivalent* and thus the queries would return the same >>> result. >> >> >> Of course, RDF entailment includes existential generalization, so >> that's not quite right. There seems to be more work that you need to >> do to get what you wanted (e.g., you need to look at the semantics >> of the query language; is the query "not" classical? how would that >> classical not interact with the LP semantics?) > > The RDF language contains existentials and I'm not claiming that this > can be done by a rule language. > We are talking about Horn Logic and Horn Logic does not have > existentials! I never claimed this! > You claimed Please point to where I claimed this. > that a Horn formula under FOL semantics has other ground > entailments than a Horn formula under LP semantics and this is simply > not true. > I think this can conclude our discussion on this topic. [snip] Oh, I *quite* agree. But perhaps not for the same reasons. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:28:15 UTC