- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:55:21 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>I propose that the following be a positive entailment test in the RDF test >suite. This is a valid RDFS entailment (modulo typing errors), but is not >a consequence of the current RDFS entailment rules. I have no objection to this being a test case. It illustrates the observation in the Semantics document (section 4.3, RDFS Entailment) that an inconsistent graph validly entails any RDF graph; the fact that this is not a consequence of the RDFS rules illustrates the remark made there to the effect that such 'trivial entailments' are not useful inferences to draw in practice. BTW, reading this made me notice an editing slip in the statement of the RDFS lemma in the proof appendix, now fixed; I have also added a 1-paragraph disclaimer where the lemma is first stated pointing out that it does not cover this kind of case and what would be needed to make it do so. Pat >Premise > ><http://example.org/prop> ><http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> ><http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . ><http://example.org/foo> <http://example.org/prop> >"<"^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . > >Conclusion > ><http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> ><http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> ><http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> . > > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 7 October 2003 14:01:21 UTC