W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:38:01 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101479b88d957583c4@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 13:31 04/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>We have containers that have ordered selectors, ie the ordering is 
>>built into the very syntax of the selectors. So the containers 
>>simply *are* ordered in any RDF interpretation, whether we want to 
>>treat that order as significant or not. So we cannot make rdf:bags 
>>into unordered entities in the RDF model theory.
>That would work for me.
>>If this is acceptable then it is trivial to add rdf:seq and rdf:bag 
>>to the MT. I've already written the relevant section. (Adding 
>>rdf:Alt to the MT is something else altogether: I would suggest 
>>that we simply abandon rdf:Alt.)
>Could we pull a similar stunt with Alt as with Bag.  An Alt is 
>simply bag with a hint that applications might consider the first 
>element as different from the others, i.e. the model theory ignores 
>the semantics of Alt.

Oh well, sure, if we ignore the semantics then we can do anything. 
The problem with Alt is that if you follow the, er, hint, then your 
conclusions actually *contradict* valid RDF conclusions, ie in this 
sense Alt is nonmonotonic.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 10:37:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC