- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:54:09 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat, > >we updated "etc" at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/ >w.r.t http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-2.1_draft.html > >| 4. RDF-entailment and RDF closures >rules http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-rules.n3 >seed http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-facts.n3 >closure http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-query.n3 > >| 6. RDFS-entailment and RDFS closures >rules http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-rules.n3 > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdfs-rules.n3 >seed http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-facts.n3 >closure http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdfs-query.n3 Great. >the only thing that we couldn't proof is > rdfs:ConstraintProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . >??? >(also cwm is not producing such a triple) Hmm. I put that in since it seems be specified by the RDFSSpec, but maybe I misunderstood that. It would be easy to remove this from both the semantics and the closure rules if people think it shouldnt be in. >Anyhow, this "state of play" is a definite improvement Pat! Yes, it is much better organized. I should have had reserved namespaces in there from the start. Einstein once said: keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 10:54:09 UTC