Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

completeness of entailment #76

Closed
pfps opened this issue Jan 31, 2025 · 3 comments
Closed

completeness of entailment #76

pfps opened this issue Jan 31, 2025 · 3 comments
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature

Comments

@pfps
Copy link
Contributor

pfps commented Jan 31, 2025 •
edited
Loading

We don't have a completeness proof for the RDFS entailment rules (yet). Perhaps more important, it is unclear to me whether we even have a completeness argument for simple semantics.

This is not a fatal problem, but we should make sure that the document doesn't claim completeness if we don't have a proof.
@pfps pfps added the spec:editorial Minor change in the specification (markup, typo, informative text; class 1 or 2) label Jan 31, 2025
@franconi franconi mentioned this issue Jan 31, 2025
Merged
@pfps pfps changed the title completeness of RDFS entailment rules completeness of entailment Mar 6, 2025
@pfps pfps added spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting and removed spec:editorial Minor change in the specification (markup, typo, informative text; class 1 or 2) labels Mar 6, 2025
@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Mar 6, 2025

It appears that there is no proof of the interpolation lemma. This should be done, but depends on the semantics staying the same. So the WG should make a decision that the current semantics is the desired one so that someone can find it worthwhile to try to prove the interpolation lemma.

@pfps pfps mentioned this issue Mar 6, 2025
Merged
@franconi franconi reopened this Mar 13, 2025
@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Mar 27, 2025

Do we have a proof of the interpolation lemma?

@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Mar 27, 2025

Closed because there is a new issue for the interpolation lemma.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@pfps @franconi