Re: problems with simple entailment rules

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: 2003年8月14日 08:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
• To: phayes@ihmc.us
• Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030814.082607.83734764.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: problems with simple entailment rules
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 20:30:53 -0700
[...]
> >> And, in addition, it says explicitly that the rule as stated is not
> >> exactly equivalent to the instance lemma, but that a modification of
> >> it- which it describes - is. I see no problem with this.
> >
> >I do. The modification is not described in sufficient detail to determine
> >exactly what the rule set is.
> 
> It is described perfectly clearly: modifying the rules to allow new 
> blank nodes to be allocated to existing blank nodes. The change to 
> the literal statement of the rule, using the textual conventions 
> indicated in the immediately preceding section, would be to replace 
> vvv by xxx in se1 and bbb by uuu in se2. This seems to me to be 
> obvious.
I do not see this as obvious to everyone. 
[...]
> Pat
Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 08:26:22 UTC