Re: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> I am deeply dissatisfied with the way the various entailment rules are
> specified in the RDF Semantics document (currently the version of 31 July).

I am currently recording your disatisfaction as not accepting closure of 
issues pfps-04 and pfps-05:

http://www.w3.http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
http://www.w3.http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05

As I understand things however, your objection is not that the closure 
rules are wrong as stated, but that you feel they are in some sense 
inadequate.  Is that correct?

Can you also clarify whether you would *object* to the drafts moving to 
the next stage in the rec track with the current closure rules, or 
whether you could in fact "live with" the current closure rules, even 
though you would strongly prefer them to be modified.

Brian


> I had hoped that the entailment rules would finally end up as complete
> syntactic characterizations of entailment.  This would result in lemmas
> somewhat along the following lines:
> 
> RDF(S) entailment lemma:  S rdf(s)-entails E if and only if there is a
> graph that can be derived from S plus the RDF (and RDFS) axiomatic triples
> by the appliation of the simple entailment rules and RDF entailment rules
> (and RDFS entailment rules) which is a supergraph of E.
> 
> Instead the entailment lemmas are incomplete in a disturbing way.  The RDF
> entailment lemma defers to simple entailment, which makes it an incomplete
> characterization of rdf-entailment.  It would be much better to remove this
> incompleteness. 
> 
> The RDFS entailment lemma also depends on simple entailment, but also has a
> condition that S be rdfs-consistent.  This detracts considerably from the
> utility of the RDFS entailment rules.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
>

Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 11:59:57 UTC