- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: yet another non-entailment Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:00:36 +0200 > > > >I'm not proposing anything complicated. I would be happy with a format > >that is something like > > > >DESCRIPTION: > > > ><text> > > > >RATIONALE: > > > ><text> > > > >PREMISE: > > > >??? > > > >CONCLUSION: > > > >??? > > I think nearly all this information is available (in a machine readable > form) and it's a small matter of programming to present it in the fashion > you suggest. > > What we haven't had is "rationale" could you give an example, maybe for one > of your suggested tests (I guess any of the examples of a non-entailment in > Pat's model theory would suffice). See the example at the end of my message. > My fear is that the rationales would end up as vacuous (e.g. "Logical > consequence of the model theory"; this rationale is, in the medium term, a > requirement - if it isn't true either the model theory or test will need to > be changed). Rationale would be things like ``This has been disputed ....'' ``This shows how the treatment of domains of properties differs from that in RDFS.'' (For an example that shows that a subclass of a domain is also a domain.) > Jeremy peter
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 08:11:24 UTC