- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 31 Jul 2003 10:59:29 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 10:37, Graham Klyne wrote: [...] > and the axiomatic triple: > > (2) rdf:type rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource . [...] > > QED (this time?) No. This requires RDFS. > > ... > > Or, more informally, I think that although IP and IR may be disjoint in > RDF-interpretations, where there is no available vocabulary for this to be > visible or otherwise in an RDF expression, the semantic conditions on RDFS > interpretation require that IP be a subset of IR. The question was about RDF entailment. Pat states that my test entailment, which just uses RDF vocabulary, holds in RDF. I think you are now saying that it doesn't. Brian ps: sorry if you get some duplicate emails. Evolution giving me more hassle this morning. B
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 06:02:29 UTC