From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:55:16 -0500

Message-Id: <CF86625A-58B5-4937-9CEA-3C07135E8D76@ihmc.us>

Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:55:16 -0500

Message-Id: <CF86625A-58B5-4937-9CEA-3C07135E8D76@ihmc.us>

Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>

Let me suggest some re-wording for the model theory and "basics". This just brings everything more into line with the way things are expressed in the current semantics, and is a little more precise. 1.2 Model-theoretic semantics Let E be an entailment regime and V a vocabulary. An E-ds-interpretation of V is an E-interpretation of V together with a function IGEXT from the universe of I to the set of RDF graphs. For a pair <n, G>, I(<n, G>) is true iff IGEXT(ID(n)) E-entails G; For a dataset D= {DG, <n1,G1>,…,<nk,Gk>), I(D) is true iff I(DG) is true and for all i in 1…k, I(<ni,Gi>) is true. ---------- Notice that with this way of phrasing the model theory, it is automatic that a dataset interpretation is also a graph interpretation. The extra structure is simply ignored when we are considering the truth of a graph in the interpretation. --------- 2.1 Basics (standard definitions) A E-entails B when for every E-ds-interpretation which makes A true also makes B true. A is E-equivalent to B when A E-entails B and B E-entails A. A is an E-contradiction when A is false in every E-interpretation. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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/phayesReceived on Thursday, 13 September 2012 04:55:50 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:07 UTC
*