Re: [ontolog-forum] Extensional vs Intensional semantics for RDF/RDFS [w

[Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 24, 2013 12:03 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> It is hard to know how to make prominent warnings about what is NOT entailed, as so much is not entailed.  Let me ask you, why did you assume that it was entailed?

There are a few warnings ⚠ of what is not entailed ⚠ - e.g. section 10 on Datasets, and appendix D.1 on reified triples. These are cases where there are obvious intuitions that do not apply in RDF(S).

[I just noticed that there is no property defined on Statement for the fourth part of the quad, which seems odd given the new concrete syntax for quads, and the intended relationship of reified statements to a statement made in a document in a concrete syntax. I can think of arguments against, but nothing is mentioned in  the new specs. ]

Simon

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)