- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:35:38 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Brian McBride wrote: > > Because the A tests have no range constraint. We either have to decide > that literals are self denoting - they always denote themselves in which > case the answer to D must be NO, or there denotation depends on a range > constraint in which case the answer to A must be NO. I don't follow. Assuming literals always denote themselves (which is the "duh!" test I was refering to), why MUST D be NO? That is to say, a _literal_ is defined as something _without_ an rdfs:range, and a _value_ is something _with_ an rdfs:range, so why can't each have their own "eq" rules? > > > >one could have two different types of equality -- string eq and value equal > > Yes. We are talking about value-eq here. > > [...] > > > >note that "value-equal" might be non-monotonic if the <rdfs:range> propery > >got detatched from the other triples > > that would not be non-monotonic - if you remove a triple then of course you > are free to remove some inferences that depend on it. My understanding of > non monotonicity is that you must never withdraw an inference because of > adding new triples. > Perhaps I am being dense so help me, suppose I have a set of triples _without_ an rdfs:range and I say "not equal" and then I add a triple with an rdfs:range, and then I say "equal" how isn't that non-monotonic? Aren't _both_ "equal" and "not equal" inferences in this specific case? Jonathan
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 09:50:18 UTC