- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:01:56 -0400
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:52:36 -0700 > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > > > Yes, but my point is that this logical interpretation is *not* RDF > > entailment. It is, instead, RDFS entailment. > > I still fail to see why it is important for us to classify entailments. > It's just going to over complicate stuff needlessly. If my agent knows the > rules for rdfs:subClass, than it can arrive at legitimate entailments, if it > doesn't know those rules, then it can't. Why can't we just agree not to > bother to classify entailments? What added benefit is gained by > classifying entailments? Well, the question is what is RDF. There appears to be disagreement over this, which I feel needs to be resolved. peter
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 13:02:59 UTC