- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:02:30 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> >>> A: >>>> >>>> <uri> <pred> <uri2> . >>>> <uri> <pred> <uri2> . >>>> >>>> B: >>>> >>>> <uri> <pred> <uri2> . >>>> >>>> C: >>>> >>>> <uri> <pred> <uri2> . >>>> <uri> <pred> _:bnode . >>>> >>>> D: >>>> >>>> <uri> <pred> <uri2> . >>>> <uri> <pred> _:bnode . >>>> _:bnode <pred> _:bnode2 . >>>> >>>(after some bug corrections) we currently find that >>> A simple-entails A >>> A simple-entails B >>> A simple-entails C >>> B simple-entails A >>> B simple-entails B >>> B simple-entails C (follows from B --> A --> C) >>> C simple-entails A >>> C simple-entails B (follows from C --> A --> B) >>> C simple-entails C >>> D simple-entails A >>> D simple-entails B (follows from D -->A -->B, and similarly for rest) >>> D simple-entails C >>> D simple-entails D >>>and we *fail* to find that >>> A simple-entails D >>> B simple-entails D >>> C simple-entails D >> >>I am *extremely* pleased to hear that, Jos :-) > >;-) > >>Now could you also try E: >> >> <uri> <pred> <uri2> . >> <uri> <pred> _:bnode . >> _:bnode2 <pred> _:bnode . >> >> Which ought to be simple-equivalent to (entail and entailed by) all >> of A, B and C (but you really only need to check one of them :-) > >(again after a bug correction http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#28.009) >we indeed find that > A simple-entails E > E simple-entails A > etc... >and again *fail* to find that > E simple-entails D Great, and many thanks for checking it. However this example has pointed out a bug in the MT document that I hadnt noticed. The interpolation lemma uses a slightly different notion of 'instance' than the one defined in the text. According to the text definition, all the instances of E must have three arcs, so none of them are a subgraph of A. I need to introduce a notion of a 'tidy instance', ie what you get by instantiating *and then tidying* the graph. I bet that is what Euler currently does automatically, in effect, right? >PS2 what about the Constraint* stuff in RDFS > I mean are we keeping/dropping that? If its in the language, it ought to be in the model theory; but is it going to be in the language?? Not my call. I await instructions. 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 Tuesday, 9 October 2001 13:02:32 UTC