- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:17:18 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
What a coincidence - while sitting in a plane this evening
I did't think to implement a "ex contradictione quodlibet".
The premise graphs are assumed to be the case unless they
can be proven to be inconsistent and then we just say so
and don't explicitly use them further. So we can't
run that testcase.
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Brian McBride
<bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Sent by: Subject: entailment-from-inconsistent-graph [was: proposed test of RDFS entailment
www-rdf-comments-req rules]
uest@w3.org
2003-10-15 03:37 PM
Peter,
The WG were unable to discuss this suggestion before publishing the 2nd
last call documents. I propose to track this as a 2nd last call comment:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph
Brian
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 18:17:24 UTC