Jos De_Roo wrote:
...
>
> the points that I wanted to say are:
> 1) there is a set of *entailment rules* (just like in RDFS MT)
> 2) not all triples are necessarily 'top-level' asserted
> i.e. some triples are kept in nested contexts
> e.g. above restriction could be an example of that
> 3) the entailment rules match with such contexts and could
> indeed (also) be used for unasserted triple derivation
>
> > 2) Were you answering the first or second question of mine above?
>
> none, Jonathan (I'm ashamed)
> I don't see any guarantee's yet ;-)
>
> > 3) Is your answer "yes" "no" or "unknown"? You say "well, I think it
> comes
> > down to what you do with what you have derived", help me to understand
> this
> > more concretely -- i.e. so I can include your position in a summary.
>
> I would refer to my above 3 points
>
Thanks, Jos (I need these bullet points !)
Does your use of nested contexts and unasserted triples support the need
for this mechanism in OWL, as a solution to Peter's most recent paradox?
(this is turning into the Patel-Schneider paradox -hopefully finite-
set)
I am reading this as yes, but want to confirm.
Jonathan
Forwarded message 1
Jos De_Roo wrote:
...
>
> the points that I wanted to say are:
> 1) there is a set of *entailment rules* (just like in RDFS MT)
> 2) not all triples are necessarily 'top-level' asserted
> i.e. some triples are kept in nested contexts
> e.g. above restriction could be an example of that
> 3) the entailment rules match with such contexts and could
> indeed (also) be used for unasserted triple derivation
>
> > 2) Were you answering the first or second question of mine above?
>
> none, Jonathan (I'm ashamed)
> I don't see any guarantee's yet ;-)
>
> > 3) Is your answer "yes" "no" or "unknown"? You say "well, I think it
> comes
> > down to what you do with what you have derived", help me to understand
> this
> > more concretely -- i.e. so I can include your position in a summary.
>
> I would refer to my above 3 points
>
Thanks, Jos (I need these bullet points !)
Does your use of nested contexts and unasserted triples support the need
for this mechanism in OWL, as a solution to Peter's most recent paradox?
(this is turning into the Patel-Schneider paradox -hopefully finite-
set)
I am reading this as yes, but want to confirm.
Jonathan