- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:53:38 +0100
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy: [...] > I don't follow the transitivity argument ... > > G entails H if every interpretation of G is an interpretation of H. > > this is clearly transitive, and a "counter-example" like > > *empty* > entails > rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:Resource > entails > rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty > > is flawed because the first entailment is false according to the LC2 > semantics. In the LC2 semantics I read [[ Even the empty graph has a large number of rdfs-entailments which are not rdf-entailments, for example all triples of the form xxx rdf:type rdfs:Resource . are true in all rdfs-interpretations of any vocabulary containing xxx. ]] so this is about the *empty* premise graph and [[ A set of names is referred to as a vocabulary. The vocabulary of a graph is the set of names which occur as the subject, predicate or object of any triple in the graph. Note that URI references which occur inside typed literals are not required to be in the vocabulary of the graph. ]] so I guess xxx is in the vocabulary of the conclusion graph and so I don't see where the above entailment is flawed... -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 06:56:01 UTC