- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:28:47 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 15 Nov 2012, at 21:29, Pat Hayes wrote:
> I like this ecept I'd like to keep the term "simple entailment" for the basic graph-level case, and so have this:
>
> 1. SImple Entailment
> IRIs
> blank nodes
> triples
> graphs
>
> 2. RDF with literals
> Datatype map
> Typed literals
> rdf:langString
>
> 3. RDFS (including datatypes-as-classes, if you like: I agree might as well merge these.)
Okay, I guess Simple Entailment should be retained.
Just to be really clear here: I suppose this means that Simple Entailment would still say:
* if E is a language-tagged string "aaa"@ttt in V, then I(E) = <aaa, ttt>
* if E is a literal in V that is not a language-tagged string, then I(E) = IL(E)
Because that's essentially the translation of the current Simple Entailment conditions for literals to the new design.
And then RDF-with-literals Entailment would just add a single condition, something like (assuming we don't change the handling of ill-typed literals):
* if <aaa,x> is in D then for any literal "sss"^^ddd in V with I(ddd) = x ,
if sss is in the lexical space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss),
otherwise IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV
So, technically speaking, rdf:langString would be handled in Simple Entailment, because that's the datatype that distinguishes language-tagged strings from other literals, and is the only datatype that isn't handled via the datatype map.
(See here:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-Graph-Literal
And the second note here:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-Datatypes )
All the other conditions (starting to take the meaning of specific IRIs into account, other than the IRIs in the datatype map) would then be in RDFS-entailment.
That would work for me.
Background: This should make it possible to take the informative entailment rules out of Semantics, and put those for Simple Entailment and RDF-with-literals Entailment as an appendix into RDF Concepts, and those for RDFS Entailment into RDF Schema, each time with a clear statement that the normative form is the model theory found in RDF Semantics.
Best,
Richard
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 14:29:18 UTC