- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:26:43 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> >Subject: Re: incompleteness of rdf-closure >Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:33:07 -0500 > >> >The RDF entailment lemma is still not valid in the 6 June 2003 version of >> >RDF semantics. >> >> That might well be the case: I have not yet checked the proof in >> detail after the many editorial changes. >> >> > >> >For example, the empty RDF graph rdf-entails >> > rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property . >> >but this is not part of the rdf-closure of the empty RDF graph. >> >> It is: >> >> rdf:subject rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . (rdfs axiom) >> rdfs:range rdfs:domain rdf:Property . (rdfs axiom) >> rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property . (rdfs2) > >I don't understand how two rdfs axioms and an rdfs rule can be used in the >determination of a rdf-closure. Ah, I hadnt noticed that subtlety. You have a point, indeed. I will think about that some more and get back to you. I have been inclining for some towards giving up on RDF (as opposed to RDFS) closures in any case. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 11:26:50 UTC