- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:11:46 +0100
- 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> . entails _:a <eg:b> _:b . but this cannot be shown. Similarly _:a <eg:b> _:a . entails _:a <eg:b> _:b . but this cannot be shown. However your wording in msg http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0202 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) Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 05:12:09 UTC