- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:14:43 -0400
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> Subject: Re: yet another non-entailment (was Re: another revision of semantics document) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:04:15 -0400 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > > > I don't see how they are fixable. > > > > Related question then would: > > John rdf:type owl:Thing . > > foo owl:sameClassAs _:x > _:x owl:oneOf _:l . > _:l owl:first John . > _:l owl:rest owl:nil . > > entail > > John rdf:type foo . > Yes, this is entailed (in every proposal). > If not, that would (obviously) be a showstopper nonentailment. Otherwise are > you saying that we are back to the solipsistic model? Well, I haven't seen a definition of how the solipsistic model is supposed to work, so I can't say whether we are back there. > Jonathan peter
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 15:14:59 UTC