- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 00:14:13 +0200
- To: "Graham Klyne <GK" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[...] > > > > I can think of two agents (cwm and Euler) that > > > > do a lot more than simple entailment, when > > > > asked to. I think of them as RDF agents. > > > > > > They are not. > > > >Er... I accept that as your opinion. > >I disagree. > > It seems we need to define what is meant by an "RDF agent". In particular, > is it entitled to draw inferences that are not licensed by RDF? I would say yes, but better call them "RDF based mechanisms" or some such. We also declare the so called "namespace entailment" like in ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test003.nt> <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test004.nt> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> ) log:entails <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test004.nt> . and those namespaces URI's tell us that we have to respect RDFS respectively OWL entailment (given their MT's). I expect that an example like ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/2000/10/swap/test/pathCross.n3> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> ) log:entails <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/2000/10/swap/test/pathCrossQ.n3> . will be further refined. -- Jos
Received on Saturday, 25 May 2002 18:14:56 UTC