- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 10:49:54 +0200
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
The recent discussions regarding reification and entailment have made me suspect that I am not understanding (again) the MT vocabulary. My understanding of entailment (coming from a computational linguistics background) is that a statement is entailed by a set of statements if it is logically implied by the set of statements (i.e. a triple is entailed by an RDF graph if it is logically implied by that RDF graph). To me, "entailment" means that adding to the graph does not increase the information already there, even if it makes some information explicit that was otherwise implicit. Everything is already there. E.g. Club members get a discount. Jill is a club member. entails Jill gets a discount. So, when folks say that _:B ex:father #Bob . _:B ex:gender ex:Male . _:G ex:father #Bob . _:G ex:gender ex:Female . entails _:B ex:gender ex:Female . _:G ex:gender ex:Male . I start to wonder if we are all talking about the same thing. Certainly the first set of triples do *not* imply the latter pair of triples. How could they? Where is the basis for such an implication? The existence of some bNode? Where are we having the breakdown in communication? (or are we ;-) Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 03:53:02 UTC