- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:08:16 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Concerning: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_finalCall_2.html At 03:12 PM 12/15/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >Datatype clashes are the only inconsistencies recognized by this model >theory. The definition of entailment means that a D-inconsistent graph >D-entails any RDF graph; however, it will usually not be appropriate to >consider such 'trivial' entailments as useful consequences, since they are >not valid rdf- or rdfs- entailments. I'm puzzled by the use of "inconsistency" here .. my understanding is that technically, the concept of consistency depends on negation, which is not recognized in RDF. [From Metalogic, Geoffrey Hunter: "A system S is Simply Consistent iff for no formula A of S are both A and the negation of A theorems of S." He then goes on to define absolute consistency for systems with the possibility to express negation of any formula.] My take on this had been that a D-inconsistent graph is unsatisfiable. Ah, I see you're using a different definition of inconsistency (http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_finalCall_2.html#glossInconsistent). So my comment becomes simply: your definition of inconsistency seems to be, er, "inconsistent" with some other published definitions. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 08:11:12 UTC