- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:23:39 +0100
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
With reference to Drew's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0034.html Consider datatypes test A1 with answer YES and literals untidy (i.e. A2 and A3 NO). We have: <bag1> rdf:_1 "10" . (1) <bag2> rdf:_1 "10" . (2) |= <bag1> rdf:_1 _:l . (3) <bag2> rdf:_1 _:l . (4) We have a cardinality constraint of max 1 on rdf:_1. Now add some new triples: <bag1> rdf:_1 _:a1 . _:a1 <foo:decimal> "10" . This is consistent with (1) above and the cardinality constraint, and also add: <bag2> rdf:_1 _:a2 . _:a2 <foo:binary> "10" . This is consistent with (2) above and the cardinality constraint. All together the added statements are consistent with (1) and (2) above, but not with with (3) and (4) above. Similar examples can be constructed using daml:collection. This is not, as I first thought, non-monotonic. However, would you agree that the entailment given above creates a contradiction where we should not really have one? Brian
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 14:24:43 UTC