- From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:07:28 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > Drew McDermott wrote: > [...] > > As RDF stands, the obvious way of representing (if p q) > > has the drawback that we could infer p and q from (if p q) alone, > > because RDF allows the inference of all the triples of a formula from > > any formula containing them. > > I don't know why people keep saying that. It's just not so. Whoa, wait a sec. When Drew says "the obvious way", I don't think he's referring to what Peter wrote. In that sense, I think Drew's right. Peter, on the other hand, is wrong if he thinks that the RDF below implies (loves John Mary). "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > ><rdf:type x OR> > > ><component x y> > > ><component x z> > > > > > ><rdf:type y rdf:Statement> > > ><rdf:subject y John> > > ><rdf:predicate y loves> > > ><rdf:object y Mary> > > > > > ><rdf:type z rdf:Statement> > > ><rdf:subject z John> > > ><rdf:predicate z loves> > > ><rdf:object z Susan> > > > > > ><loves Bill Susan> > > > > > ><rdf:type Bill Person> > > ><rdf:type John Person> > > ><rdf:type Susan Person> > > ><rdf:type Mary Person>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 18:07:36 UTC