- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:00:57 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...] >>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?? OK, it's now fixed in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#R29038 -- Jos
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 19:01:27 UTC