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

Re: Peter's objection to the RDF(S) rules

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:06:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20031006.220653.125094714.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Peter's objection to the RDF(S) rules
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:20:32 -0500

> On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 19:03, pat hayes wrote:
> [...] 
> > in our case, 
> > the RDF(S) rules transform RDF(S)-entailment into simple entailment, 
> > so that  S rdf-entails E iff you can derive an S' from S by using the 
> > rdf rules such that S' simply entails E; but we don't give rules for 
> > simple entailment itself.
> Yup, that's how I understand it.
> I had to scratch my head a bit the first time I thought
> hard about this, but I'm quite content with it.
> [...]
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

If this was indeed the case then I would not be worrying so much about the
situation.  It appears to be the case for RDF entailment, but the RDFS
entailment rules are still incomplete.  The RDFS entailment rules fail to
reduce RDFS entailment to simple entailment.  As of the last version of the
RDF Semantics document that I reviewed there was no operational
specification for RDFS entailment.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 22:07:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:26 UTC