- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:29:56 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 17:35, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >[...] >> > >> >> RDF/xml has special syntax for containers, but experience >> >> trying to exploit it to come to intuitive conclusions >> >> has exposed problems. Take the class above... say >> >> Continent is the subject of that oneOf property. >> >> If we know >> >> >> >> ex:Bob daml:differentIndividualFrom ex:Eurasia. >> >> ex:Bob daml:differentIndividualFrom ex:Africa. >> >> ex:Bob daml:differentIndividualFrom ex:North_America. >> >> ex:Bob daml:differentIndividualFrom ex:South_America. >> >> ex:Bob daml:differentIndividualFrom ex:Australia. >> >> ex:Bob daml:differentIndividualFrom ex:Antarctica. >> >> >> >> ex:NotContinent daml:complementOf ex:Continent. >> >> >> >> then we should be able to conclude >> >> >> >> ex:Bob rdf:type ex:NotContinent. >> >> >> >> Now this works perfectly well* when the oneOf claim >> >> is spelled out long-hand using first/rest/nil. >> >> [To Dan:] >> Well, that isn't clear. > >Sigh... I should have known better than to make that claim >without working out the details... > >> After all, it is RDF-legal to add some other >> rest/first/rest chains to the same bnodes, > >Well, first and rest are UniqueProperties. There isn't any such notion in RDF. I said it was RDF-legal. I know its not DAML-legal. >i.e. if > > :x ont:first :y. >and > :x ont:first :z. >then > :y ont:equivalentTo :z. > >So if you add other first/rest chains, you claim >the relevant gizmos denote the same thing. If that's >not the case, you've contradicted yourself. Not in RDF you havn't. > >> so the daml:list is just >> as dependent on a closed-world assumption > >I don't see any closed world reasoning in saying >that first/rest are functional/unique properties. > >> as the RDF container syntax >> would be in this context. I bet that your (and Jos) code would break, >> or act unpredictably, if given a branching daml:list. > >Well, 'unpredictably' is probably a reasonable way to >characterize the behaviour of a prover when given >inconsistent input. Its not inconsistent in RDF. That is the point. 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, 23 April 2002 15:30:10 UTC