- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:05:01 -0000
- To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > I thought monotonicity was a feature, not a bug. As far as I remember > what logics etc. was about, if we drop monotonicity things become really > hairy and computationally impractical even for small data/knowledge > bases. Please correct me if I'm wrong... Agree - monotonicity is a very high want. > > Does TDL require non-monotonic reasoning? No. > > Sergey > > We seem to be very near to closure now, so I think for now we can drop the topic and only come back to it later if necessary. If interested ... The point of the original message was meant to indicate a subtle difference between S-P and TDL at the model theoretic level, roughly: TDL is monotonic in datatypes, and S-P isn't. The difference was that in S-P the MT representation of rdf:value was defined with a finite known set of datatypes, and TDL used the same definition but with arbitrary unknown datatypes added. The resulting final TDL and S-P definitions of rdf:value looked very different but that was superficial. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 09:04:57 UTC