W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: RDF-ISSUE-97 (interpretations-depends-on-V): Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? [RDF Semantics]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:35:59 -0400
Message-ID: <5051003F.2090505@gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I don't think that this is a problem.

The dependence on vocabulary is a technical trick, and any time you are 
talking about entailment you should include the entire vocabulary.

So, the entailment below is valid, as the only interpretations that matter 
interpret the entire relevant vocabulary, ....

Maybe there should be wording to this effect in some document, however.

peter



On 09/12/2012 05:03 PM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> RDF-ISSUE-97 (interpretations-depends-on-V): Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? [RDF Semantics]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97
>
> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann
> On product: RDF Semantics
>
> Currently, all notions of "interpretation" in RDF Semantics depend on a vocabulary V. An interpretation of a vocabulary V cannot interpret terms that are not in V. This leads to certain unexpected non-entailments, for instance:
>
>   { :s :p "2"^^xsd:integer }
>
> does not XSD-entail:
>
>   { :s :p "+2"^^xsd:integer }
>
> or, in RDFS semantics, the triple:
>
>   { ex:s  rdf:type  rdfs:Resource }
>
> is not true in all graphs.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 21:36:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:51 GMT