- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:56:51 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
>>This simple entailment test came to me while formulating some words about >>datatyping... >> >> ex:prop rdf:range xsd:integer . >> ex:subj ex:prop "10" . >> >>entails/doesnot entail: >> >> ex:subj ex:prop xsd:integer"10" . doesnot entail >So let me check my understanding here. With tidy semantics, this >entailment does not hold, because if it did, then given: > > <a> <b> "10" . > <c> <d> "10" . > >we entail: > > <a> <b> _:l . > <c> <d> _:l . that's also my understanding >If we now add to the premises > > <b> rdfs:range xsd:string . > <d> rdfs:range xsd:decimal . > >then the entailment would no longer hold. > >That would be non-monotonic and monotonicity is a must for the model theory. right -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ PS we have reimplemented typed literals as just constants (before they were functional terms which we will omit)
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 05:03:57 UTC