- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:39:40 -0400
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- CC: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Jos--
Can you say a little more about why you don't want to lose this
entailment? Note: my understanding is that even under F an application
would still be able to access the triples
:I :love "RDF".
:You :love "RDF".
and deduce anything it wanted, including
:I :love _:x.
:You :love _:x.
(presumably on the basis that the two "RDF" strings *may* have been
meant to refer to the same thing). It's only entailments directly
defined by the RDF semantics we're talking about here, not additional
determinations that applications may want to make, right?
--Frank
Jos De_Roo wrote:
>
> [sorry to be late, but I had no access in Bristol to my mailbox]
>
> B 5 (for rdf:format xsd:... there are canonical lexical forms)
> C 3 (should we then always say e.g. owl:cardinality xsd:integer"2"?)
> D 2 (meaning is same as C, but less kiss)
> F 0 i.e. I do not want to loose the the entailment
> :I :love _:x.
> :You :love _:x.
> given *nothing* but
> :I :love "RDF".
> :You :love "RDF".
> (ref. meaningful derivation requirement)
>
--
Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 08:28:06 UTC