W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: entailment test case etc001

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:43:07 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101062b7fca9c3c9df@[]>
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  >> I've written and tested
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/#etc001
>>>  In there we use an experimental description (in n3, nt and rdf) [1]
>>>  and it runs with euler as
>>>    jview Euler etc001.nt
>>>  Pat: are there use/mention bugs in
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/etc001.n3
>>  OK, I havn't been taking this log:implies stuff seriously,
>>  but if I am forced to, then I cannot make sense of it.
>>  For example this example contains the triple
>  > _:a1 <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#conjunction> <
>>  Now, what kind of thing is the object of that triple? What kinds of
>>  things are in the extension of the property <http:....log#conjunction> ?
>according to http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2000/10/swap/log.n3
>    log:conjunction a rdf:Property;
>        rdfs:label "conjunction";
>        rdfs:domain log:List;
>        rdfs:range  log:Formula;
>        rdfs:comment """"A function to merge formulae: logical AND.
>    The subject is a list of formulae.
>    The object, which can be generated, is a formula containing a copy
>    of each of the formulae in the list on the left.
>so I have done it completely wrong, sorry for the confusion
>the intention is to have
>--> there is something, say _:a1
>     and that something is the merge of a set of graphs
>     identified by those URI's in object position
>     (and then of course that merged graph entails a graph)

OK, I'm getting there, sorry I'm slow. Yes, I see. This makes sense, 
I agree. The things are the RDF graphs/Ntriples documents, whatever, 
and the relationships between them are defined by entailment 
relationships between those graphs/documents. I think you ought to 
call them things like
(rather than log#), is all, but that's just aesthetics.(It would help 
to keep the different entailments straight, though.)

I guess I'm still slightly puzzled by HOW you get from the fact that 
the merge of a, b and c simple-entails d, to the assertion of the 
existence of the entailment of the conjunction. There seems to be a 
kind of entailment-reification going on here, and *that* isn't 
RDF-valid, of course, though we could probably state it as another 
semantic extension, and call it entailment-valid, or something.



IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:43:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC