- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[Drew McDermott]
> 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.
[Dan Connolly]
I don't know why people keep saying that. It's just not so.
[Lynn Stein]
I don't know why people keep saying that. It's just not so.
When Drew says "the obvious way", I don't think he's referring to what Peter
wrote.
Yes, by the "obvious" way I meant avoiding any reification, and just
making the representation of p and q occur unaltered as pieces of the
representation of (if p q). So any triple that occurs in p would also
occur in (if p q), and hence be asserted when (if p q) was asserted.
-- Drew McDermott
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 10:27:19 UTC