Re: potential edit for Concepts section 1.7

Thanks, Peter,

I have re-read section 1.7 based on Markus' review and Peter's suggested change carefully.  In my opinion:

- Markus is correct that the definitions in the section dangle.
- However, it is important to clearly place RDF Concepts in relation to Semantics and other higher-level specifications such as RDFS and OWL.
- I am reluctant to force an edit of Semantics to fix a problem we cannot agree exists (that is, that this section should move to Semantics).

Therefore, I am happy with Peter's suggested change and do not wish to change this section further.

Thanks to everyone who helped.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> An RDF triple encodes a statement—a simple logical expression, or claim
> about the world. An RDF graph is the conjunction (logical AND) of its
> triples. The precise details of this meaning of RDF triples and graphs are
> the subject of the RDF Semantics specification [RDF-MT], which yields the
> following relationships between RDF graphs:
> 
> Entailment
> An RDF graph A entails another RDF graph B if every possible arrangement
> of the world that makes A true also makes B true. When A entails B, if
> the truth of A is presumed or demonstrated then the truth of B is
> established.
> Equivalence
> Two RDF graphs A and B are equivalent if they make the same claim about
> the world. A is equivalent to B if and only if A entails B and B entails
> A.
> Inconsistency
> An RDF graph is inconsistent if it contains an internal
> contradiction. There is no possible arrangement of the world that would
> make the expression true.
> 
> An entailment regime [RDF-MT] is a specification that defines precise
> conditions that make these relationships hold. RDF itself recognizes only
> some basic cases of entailment, equivalence and inconsistency. Other
> specifications, such as RDF Schema [RDF-SCHEMA] and OWL 2 [OWL2-OVERVIEW],
> add more powerful entailment regimes, as do some domain-specific
> vocabularies.
> 
> This specification does not constrain how implementations use the logical
> relationships defined by entailment regimes. Implementations may or may not
> detect inconsistencies, and may make all, some or no entailed information
> available to users.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter
> 
>