>> > > Mutability only requires changes to the semantics if mutability is perceived as having semantic consequences. So a good place to start might be to ask anyone who thinks it does, to come up with an example involving mutability and entailment (or consistency). For example, if we have explicit time snapshots, then an inconsistency which appears when times can be inferred to overlap might be such an example. > >> Pat has said in the past that perhaps we should forgo a semantics for RDF given the widely divergent interpretations in the wild. I (and others) don't think we can or should just throw away the semantics, if for no other reason than OWL, RIF, etc, currently depend on them. > > Well, actually they don't. Both OWL and RIF have their own, normative, sematnics defined independently of RDF. > I cannot check it right now (I write this mail from my mobile) but as far as I remember the RDF compatible semantics of OWL 2 explicitly refers back to the RDF Semantics (of course the 2004 version) in its definiton. To be checked, though. Ivan > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 18:20:48 UTC