Issue name: 033-DefineEntailment

Entailment is not adequately defined

Raised by:

Shelley Powers

Raised on:

2002-11-21

Raised in message:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0146.html

Target document section reference(s):

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-Entailment

Status:

Waiting

Last updated:

2002-11-26

Owner:

Graham Klyne

Details

Again, though, if this document is for a general audience, then you may want
to consider use of certain terms such as entailment. You give an example,
and you talk about it, but you don't define it.

I as a programmer, not a semantician or a researcher, or someone who dabbles
in AI and KM in my spare time will look at your section on entailment and
say, "Do they mean equality? If so, why don't they say equality? Why are
they using this term called 'entailment'?"

You can't assume a specialized vocabulary and say that a document is for a
general technical audience.

History

2002-11-21: Raised

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0146.html

The term "entailment" is introduced, but not adequately defined.

2002-11-26: Assigned

This is part of my mission here - #g.

I think we may want to reverse the trend to reducing text in this area, and add an additional paragraph of explanation aimed at explaining the significance of entailment as underpinning inference.