- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:06:01 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>The current state of affairs with respect to the RDFS entailment rules and >the RDFS entailment lemma is not acceptable to me. > >The RDFS entailment rules are not a complete characterization of >rdfs-entailment. To repeat, the sense of 'complete' which makes this assertion true has never been used in any version of the document. You have had innumerable opportunities to comment on or object to this design before and at LC, so I do not consider that to raise this issue now, for the first time, is reasonable or acceptable. >The RDFS entailment lemma has been changed in a manner unacceptable to me. I presume that you are referring to the restriction to consistent antecedents. If so, then I am afraid that you will have remain dissatisfied, as the rules were always designed with this condition in mind; it was not stated explicitly because I had failed to note that a graph could be RDFS-inconsistent, so thought that the condition was satisfied vacuously. Making this assumption explicit is not a change, in my view. I note that one could obtain a complete set of rules which would not need this condition, by adding a rule of the form xxx ppp "sss"^^rdf:XMLliteral . ppp rdfs:range rdf:XMLLiteral . |- yyy qqq zzz . where sss is any string which is not a well-formed XML literal string. However, this rule would be of no practical use or theoretical interest; it is like the rule of contradiction in a natural deduction system. I see no purpose in displaying this shallow kind of logical erudition in a normative standard document. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 00:06:06 UTC