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

Re: model theory publication draft

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:15:34 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101018b7ce80bb03f8@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Thanks Pat!
>It would be good to get this published.  We said we would allow a week
>to give folks time to review publication candidates.  We have less than
>that before Friday.  However, if folks have reviewed it to their
>satisfaction by then, I'd see no point in delaying.
>So unless there are objections, I may ask at Friday's telecon
>whether we are happy to publish.

If anyone wants to focus, I'd suggest looking at the stuff on RDF 
entailment. Here's a question that occurred to me, for example. 
Suppose we know that
aaa rdf:type bbb .
and also
bbb rdfs:subClassOf ccc .
Now, it follows that aaa is in fact a member of the class ccc; but do 
we want to say that this means that
aaa rdf:type ccc

must be true? If we do, that table of RDF entailment rules would need 
some more entries. Right now it reflects the view that being in a 
class doesn't necessarily mean having that class as a type, only 
having some subclass of it as a type.

If there is any debate on this it's not necessarily a showstopper 
either since it would be easy to make appropriate changes in 
subsequent versions, and if anyone out there has strong views on 
issues like this they will likely complain rather than be misled. 
Just thought I'd get the issue aired a little.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 13:15:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC