- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:43:24 -0500
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax Date: 14 Dec 2001 11:32:48 -0600 > On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 11:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > [...] > > The Basic Problem: > > > > SWOL is supposed to be an extension of RDF. As such, the semantics of SWOL > > should be upward compatible with the semantics of RDF. That is, that SWOL > > entailment reduces to RDF entailment on RDF knowledge bases. > > Why do you say that? Because that is how it should work. Do you really want SWOL entailment to be different from RDF entailment on RDF documents? > I'd say SWOL entailment reduces to FOL entailment (less > the excluded middle). SWOL entailment does exclude the middle. > p.s. this mailer doesn't seem to be doing The Right Thing > with reply-to. Sorry. You could hand-edit the headers. > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > peter
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 12:45:09 UTC