W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Cut back RDFCore semantics doc

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:11:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3EF17E52.3000207@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

> " We believe that these rules are complete in the following sense: if S 
> rdf(s)-entails E then there is a graph which can be derived from S+the 
> rdf(+rdfs) axiomatic triples by these rules which simply entails E. 
> However, this has not been conclusively established at the time of 
> writing."
> Note that this does not mention closures, so the question of whether or 
> not they are finite does not come up.
> This is done in a modified version: 
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_appenda.html
> dated 18a June
> I will try to propose resolutions for the outstanding semantic issues 
> asap, but I may have to get on a plane soon.
> Pat

That version suffers the following defects vis-a-vis simple completeness

<eg:a> <eg:b> <eg:a> .


_:a <eg:b> _:b .

but this cannot be shown.


_:a <eg:b> _:a .


_:a <eg:b> _:b .

but this cannot be shown.

However your wording in msg


is, I believe, satisfactory.


The same phrase could be used to conjecture the completeness of the simple 
entailment rules.

Again, stylistically I dislike the phrase "at the time of writing" in the 
statement of your conjecture. (Take it or leave it)

Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 05:12:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:23 UTC