W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Review of the RDF based semantics document (CLOSE ACTION-316)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:11:06 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0011DA6DB@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:

>>> -----------
>>>
>>> Section 4.2, second paragraph (definition of I),
>>>
>>> "provided that d is a datatype of D, I(u) = d, and" ->
>>> "provided that d is a datatype of D, IS(u) = d, and"
>>>
>>> Actually... I think a usual abuse of the syntax is to use the I(E)
>>> formulation for an interpretation when this means, mathematically, is
>>> IS(E) where 'IS' is the mapping defined in 'I'. As this shorthand is
>>> used all over the place, it might be worth noting it here.
>>
>> I have deliberately chosen to use "I" instead of "IS", since
>>
>> * the RDF Semantics explicitly defines it this way in the "semantic
>conditions for ground graphs" (Section 1.4 of the RDF Semantics), and
>>
>> * the RDF Semantics does use "I" instead of "IS" consistently in the
>whole document (see for example the table on "RDFS semantic conditions"
>in Section 4.1 of the RDF Semantics).
>>
>> I don't want to deviate from the practice used in the RDF Semantics
>document without any good reason. One good reason would be that some
>nomenclature is used throughout the OWL 2 spec in a different form than
>in the RDF Semantics, but this is not the case here.
>>
>> So I am not intending to change this.
>
>I do not ask you to deviate from the RDF Semantics. However, the table
>in 1.4 of the RDF semantics _explicitly_ defines, say, I(E) as being
>equal to IS(E), ie, introduces a function notation for what is, in fact,
>not a function but a tuple. And that is perfectly consistent within the
>RDF Semantics text.
>
>Now you are right that this document explicitly refers to the RDF
>Semantics, so your usage of I(u) instead of IS(u) is mathematically
>correct. But this forces the reader to go back to the RDF semantics text
>to understand this, in spite of the fact that this section stands by
>itself.
>
>I think what has to be done is actually very simple: to add somewhere
>some text which says: "following the practice, as also introduced in
>section 1.4 of the RDF semantics, the notation I(x) will also be used to
>denote IS(x)" or something like that.

Ah, thanks! I remember that I planned to do this when I first read through your mail, but simply forgot it later. I have put an adaptation of your text right after the definition of a D-Interpretation in Section 4.2. The "IL" function is covered by the text, either.

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21212&oldid=21211>

Thanks,
Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================



Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 21:11:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 April 2009 21:11:50 GMT