- From: Claudio Gutierrez <cgutierr@dcc.uchile.cl>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:06:51 -0400 (CLT)
- To: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jos.deroo@agfa.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> Thanks. From everyone's comments [1,2,3], I guess that either OWL or RDFS > entailment is required, right? RDF alone doesn't define inferencing for > subclasses (or support much of any inferencing really). Definitively. You are right. claudio > -- > Jimmy > > [1] Jos: > i.e. making use of rdfs-rule > > [2] Jeremy: > A point is that this is an rdfs rule - so if you are only using rdf or > simple entailment, and not rdfs or owl entailment the result does not > follow. > > [3] Claudio Gutierrez: > The statements make sense only in the framework of RDFS (it uses > rdfs:subClassOf, etc.), hence i am assuming your question is about > RDFS-entailment. > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. > http://personals.yahoo.com >
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:07:27 UTC