- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:14:43 +0100
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee <timbl" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, www-tag-request@w3.org, Dan Connolly <comnnolly@w3.org>
>>> As TimBL mentioned, cwm implements the integration
>>> of all this stuff... connecting KR to WWW. The
>>> log:semantics primitive in cwm is a simpler model
>>> than the 9711theory/HTTP model... but I think
>>
>> right, I think I understand that after today
>> and we are really mistaken when not making the
>> distinction between e.g. the doc:Work and the log:Formula
>> (that's quite a shock and I'm hoping to repair soon...)
>>
>
>I haven't looked at what you have done there, but
>if you have just coalesced the notions of doc:Work
>and log:Formula, for example by using
><foo> :says { whatever } rather than
>[ is log:semantics of <foo> ] log:includes { whatever }
>then that is just a greater form of simplification,
>which is still a valid system. It doesn't give you
>such a access to what is going on.
>It is just like the simplification which
>log:semantics is when it doesn't model all
>of the HTTP protocol.
right, OK, I see
some time ago we descibed a testcase as
(<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema>) log:implies
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> .
(we also tried with namespace entailment using empty fragments)
but we now have it as
[ is log:conjunction of
( [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom> ]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> ]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ] ) ]
log:implies
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> ] .
because we indeed need the page withe the
formulas written on it
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 16:15:31 UTC