- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:21:18 +0000
- To: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: chet@watson.ibm.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Hi Chet,
At 13:04 02/12/2002 -0500, Chet Murthy wrote:
>[Not sure if this is the right place to send such a note.]
Its not a bad place. This is a good place for general discussion of rdf
stuff. www-rdf-logic@w3.ogr is maybe better for the more formal
aspects. If you want to communicate formally with the wg, e.g. if you
think there is a problem with a spec, www-rdf-comments@w3.org is the place.
[...]
>By this definition,
>
>(1a) eg:a eg:prop1 eg;b.
>(1b) eg:c eg:prop2 eg:d.
>
>is an instance of
>
>(2a) _:a eg:prop1 _:b.
>(2b) _:b eg:prop2 _:c.
>
>since
>
>(1a) is an instance of (2a) by { _:a -> eg:a, _:b -> eg:b }
>
>(1b) is an instance of (2b) by { _:b -> eg:c, _:c -> eg:d }
>
>Clearly, this shouldn't be allowed,
You really need Pat or one of the logicians to answer this question, but
maybe we can lay some groundwork. My antenae twitched when I read that
too, but reading on I figured it was ok. Can you explain why this
shouldn't be allowed? At what step does the interpolation lemma fail?
Brian
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:20:17 UTC