- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:47:08 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jos De_Roo wrote: > > For g4, how could eg:p (used in g0) NOT be in the domain of discourse? > (I want to say anything about anything) > It's (almost) cast in stone in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ > as > [[[ > if E contains then add > rdf1 xxx aaa yyy . aaa [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] . > ]]] > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdf_entail > > as is for g5 > [[[ > 1. Add the following triple (which is true in any rdf-interpretation): > > [rdf:type] [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] . > ]]] > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdf_entail > > Can someone PLEASE, yes PLEASE clarify? > I can give _a_ clarification: this seems just like Pat and Guha's most recent "reserved triples" proposal to RDFCore, whereby these triples are considered "reserved for syntax" by OWL. In such case, indeed, the entailments licensed by the RDF MT are not the same as those licensed by OWL which underscores the importance of something like Lbase to 'coordinate' between the RDF and OWL MTs -- well this is my impression. Jeremy, if my interpretation (sic :-) is correct, then perhaps we find ourselves in agreement :-)) Jonathan
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 12:52:26 UTC