- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:50:34 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-11 17:35, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, it goes outside RDF, but one could argue that if it is known
> that ex:father is functional, ie people only have one father, then
>
> _:B ex:father #Bob .
> _:G ex:father #Bob .
>
> together entail _:G = :_B,
OK, here's where you lost me. How does the fact that _:G
and _:B both have the same father, even if it were known that
ex:father were functional, imply that _:G and _:B are
the same resource?
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 Monday, 11 February 2002 11:49:15 UTC