[rdfweb-dev] Some RDF stats

Graham Klyne GK at ninebynine.org
Tue Aug 12 10:03:58 UTC 2003

At 05:41 07/08/03 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>Looking at this, I am inclined towards the first option, and to say that
>'male' and 'female' are expected values for that property, but not
>restrict other possibilities there. We could also write inference rules
>such as:
>      ?x foaf:gender 'male'
>      implies (or is it entails? I can never remember)
>      ?x rdf:type wordnet:Male


This looks to me like a considerate way to bridge from social expectations 
to logical truths.

(If your logic is sound and complete then implies and entails should be 
interchangeable.  Entails is model theoretic (every interpretation 
satisfying A also satisfies B) where implies is proof theoretic (using 
axioms and rules of inference you can get from A to B).  I think... 
'Implies' is also used to mean "material implication" which is a 
truth-function like (NOT A) OR B, so maybe 'infer' is more correct?)


Graham Klyne  <GK at NineByNine.net>
Nine by Nine

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list