- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 22:16:08 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> >2: the triples *are* redundant > > It is easy to automatically add them; or for that matter, automatically > >remove them. > Adding them is a valid entailment. Removing them is not. The two entailments I had in mind were _:a rdf:type rdf:List . _:a rdf:first any . => _:a rdf:first any . (i.e. deleting the type triple) and _:a rdf:type rdf:List . _:a rdf:rest any . => _:a rdf:rest any . (i.e. deleting the type triple) In the presence of the domain and range constraints then the RHS graphs are semantically equivalent to the LHS graphs. I was not intending the unsound. _:x rdf:type rdf:List . => (empty) where the RHS graph has fewer entailments than the LHS graph. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 16:15:59 UTC