- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:10:10 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
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.
I suppose that depends on what "is" is. But seriously, you appear to have
avoided my questions. What is the relationship between the question {What
is RDF?}and (the classification of entailments according to namespace) ?
Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 13:16:36 UTC