- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:38:01 -0700
- To: "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Seth: 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, Pat: There is no universal overriding notion of 'legitimate' entailment, is why. I agree it complicates things, but I see no way around the fact that life is complicated. Seth: Life is complicated, agreed. Consider the graph: <ex:Jane> <rdf:type> <ex:Woman>. <ex:Woman> <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:Human>. <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:comment> "Indicates membership of a class". <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:rule> "(=> (subClass ?SUBCLASS ?CLASS) (forall (?INST) (=> (rdf:type ?INST ?SUBCLASS) (rdf:type ?INST ?CLASS))))". Given that graph, do you agree that some agent could calucate that "<ex:Jane> <rdf:type> <ex:Human>." ?? If so, then what kind of entailment is that, RDF, or RDFS, or is it EX, or is it RDF+EX+RDFS ? What are we to use that classification for? In other words what is the actual utility of that kind of thinking? .... I think I'm gonna keep asking that question untill I get an answer. Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:44:31 UTC