- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:15:51 -0600
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>[...] > >> There's something wrong with Euler, then. It isn't valid to go from >> >> <some huge graph with _:s1 in it> >> <an exactly similar graph with _:s2 substituted for _:s1> >> _:s1 foo baz >> >> to >> _:s2 foo baz. >> >> no matter what is in the huge graph. See my reply to Graham, I think I was misunderstanding y'all. Sorry about that. I thought you were inferring triples and adding them to a graph, but you were talking about entailment between distinct graphs (so the use of the same nodeID is irrelevant, right?) > >well Pat, we get that > > <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> _:s1 . > <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> _:s2 . > _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . > >is *not* entailing > > _:s2 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . Well, now. Is that conclusion supposed to be a separate graph all on its own? If so, you should get this entailment (just from the third triple in the first graph.) If its supposed to be conjoined to the first three triples, so that those two _:s2's really are the same node, then you should not get the entailment. > >even > > <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> _:s1 . > <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> _:s2 . > _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . > >is *not* entailing > > _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . > Hmm, that seems odd by anyone's standards. Why not? Its the very same triple, right? So even if you add it to the graph, you would get the same graph. >and even > > <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> _:s1 . > _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . > >is *not* entailing > > _:s2 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . That should be entailed, again by anyone's standards. It is always OK to say an existential statement again using a different bound variable, even inside the same graph. > >but > > _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#s> <http://example.org/eg#p> . > _:s1 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . > >is entailing > > _:s2 <http://example.org/eg#q> <http://example.org/eg#v> . ?? Why is this different from the previous case?? 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 Wednesday, 6 February 2002 13:15:14 UTC