- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:27:29 +0100
- To: "Lynn, James (Software Services)" <james.lynn@hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > > > > > Andrew Newman wrote: > > > > > Isn't that nearly always going to be wrong? I mean just because an > > > bnode has the same properties (say first name and last name > > or even just > > > first name) doesn't mean they are the same thing. > > > > Second sentence is true but irrelevant to the first. > > A reduction from G to G' is sound and complete iff G entails > > G' and G' > > entails G by the RDF Semantics. > > > Jeremy - I don't follow why G must G'. Isn't it sufficient for G' > to entail G? Am I missing something? > > Thanks, > James > > Hi James, if G' is a subset of G then G always entails G' and there is no issue. If that's your point, I agree. On the other hand, if G' is some arbitrary other graph then it might include other facts that are not in G, even if G' entails G - in which case replacing G by G' is unsound. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 10:27:49 UTC