- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:43:07 -0500
- 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> < >http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test001.nt> >. >> >> 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) >help... 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 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdf#conjunction (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. Cute! 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 Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:43:19 UTC