- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 14 Dec 2001 15:38:37 -0600
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 13:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > What I meant was: > > If D1 and D2 are two RDF documents that do not use any non-RDF DAML+OIL (or > SWOL) constructs then D1 RDF-entails D2 precisely when D2 DAML+OIL- (or > SWOL-) entails D2. OK, yes. But it's kinda hard to say when an RDf document doens't use DAML+OIL stuff... via some chaing of subproperties etc. > > > > > > I'd say SWOL entailment reduces to FOL entailment (less > > > > > > the excluded middle). > > > > > > > > > > SWOL entailment does exclude the middle. > > > > > > > > Er... argument by assertion. I can do that too: > > > > No, it does not. > > > > > > I'm not making an argument by assertion, just stating a simple fact that > > > can easily be determined from a quick perusal of the appropriate documents. > > > > The word "middle" doesn't occur in > > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/model-theoretic-semantics.html > > > > I assume that's the the document you were talking about. > > The text of that document is sufficiently dense that > > I don't get much out of a quick perusal. I'd appreciate > > if you'd point out where it says that DAML+OIL > > excludes the middle. > > If you are going to argue about logic and semantics please try to > understand what you are arguing about. Ah... now an ad hominem attack. Also unconvincing. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 16:38:41 UTC