W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Wording Fixes for section 12.6

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:38:51 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230909c21b41d27f56@[]>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Sorry, I should have done this earlier. (Thanks to Lee for pushing my 
nose to the grindstone.)

Some changes needed to the wording in section 12.6.

Third para, replace

"An entailment regime is a transitive idempotent binary relation 
between subsets of RDF graphs. A graph in the range of an entailment 
regime E is called well-formed for the regime."


"An <i>entailment regime</i> specifies (1) a subset of RDF graphs 
called <i>well-formed</i> for the regime, and (2) an 
<i>entailment</i> relation between subsets of well-formed graphs and 
well-formed graphs."

para 4, insert new second sentence. "Of these, only OWL-DL entailment 
restricts the set of well-formed graphs."

para 5, second sentence, replace

"For example, "-1"^^xsd:positiveInteger is inconsistent with respect 
to D-entailment."


"For example, the RDF graph

_:x rdf:type xsd:string .
_:x rdf:type xsd:decimal .

is D-inconsistent when D contains the XSD datatypes."

(Or, use some other example of a datatype clash from 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#defDinterp )(Or, omit.)

To help overcome some of Fred's objections to how this is worded, it 
might help also to link the first mention of the 'scoping graph' in 
the first SPARQL condition to the explanation at
Or if y'all don't like internal links, give an explicit reference to 
section 12.3.2.

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 18:39:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:53 UTC