- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:52:29 +0200
- To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>
On 2002-01-30 13:51, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:
>> Is the above now clearer?
>
> Clearer, but I don't accept that there is no problem with self-entailment
> in TDL as currently presented.
>
> I think TDL possibly can be fixed (and have sent some ideas to Jememy), but
> until it is fixed it isn't in my mind a fully fledged proposal.
Fair enough.
Though I'd very much like your comments to my question in
my MT commments to Pat, that insofar as the actual denoted
values are concerned, I wonder if either TDL or S can
ensure entailment, since RDF is stuck with non-canonical
lexical forms. C.f. the last comment in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0400.html
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 07:51:24 UTC