- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:31:34 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-04-19 13:23, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> ... Is there an entailment test here?
>
>Here's mine.
>
>Given the following closure rules:
>
>.....
>
># Rule 4 (this is new)
>
>{
> ?p rdfd:datatype ?d .
> ?s ?p ?l .
> ?l rdf:type rdfs:Literal
>}
>log:implies
>{
> ?s ?p ?o.
> ?o rdfd:lex ?l
>} .
I don't think rule 4 is valid. That is, Im not sure quite what
?l rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
is intended to convey, but if its supposed to say that the object of
the previous triple is a literal, then the rule is not valid. Here's
a counterexample:
Suppose IEXT(I(<ex:PPP>)) is the identity map. Then for example I satisfies
_:x <ex:PPP> "10" .
<ex:PPP> rdfd:datatype <xsd:integer> .
(map _:x to "10"; all literal strings are in the universe; "10" is in
the lexical space of the datatype) but not
_:x <ex:PPP> "10" .
<ex:PPP> rdfd:datatype <xsd:integer> .
_:x <ex:PPP> _:y .
_:y rdfd:lex "10" .
since this requires _:y to denote an integer, and so requires 10 to
equal "10" in that datatyped interpretation.
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, 19 April 2002 21:31:41 UTC