W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: ISSUE 149 - wording in Semantics in "Intuitive Summary" subsection

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:57:43 -0500
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <47B0D339-DE08-4B16-85EA-3AA32D847E18@ihmc.us>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
I guess some readers just are pedantic, and those readers will be more confused than helped by anything this loose and informal. I think that David's replies to this thread (both on- and off-list, in the latter where for example he has objected that the bnode mapping is not part of the interpretation and therfore should not be mentioned in the same way as the IRI mapping) illustrate this. Therefore, I think it is better to just not get into this loose intuitive stuff in the text of the spec.  

Pat

On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:46 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> This is being far too pedantic for the informal status of the section in question.
> 
> peter
> 
> On 10/04/2013 08:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't understand.  Although there is some sloppiness here, as conditions 1-4 talk about refer and don't explicitly mention "in the interpretation", surely the "under a given interpretation" provides the correct context.
>> Consider:
>> 
>> "An RDF graph is true under a given interpretation exactly when:
>>>> 1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all
>>>> refer to things,
>> But suppose that they refer to things that are not in the universe of the given interpretation, then this is false. So to make it true, we have to change it to
>> 
>> 1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all refer to things in the universe of the given interpretation,
>> 
>> and so on in the same vein. And then this becomes a redundant restatement of the truth conditions given previously, just as opaque to someone who wants to read about truth and reference but does not want to wrestle with the idea of an interpretation. No doubt David would respond, but readers should be *obliged* to think about interpretations, and then my reply would be, OK, but if so then this section is inappropriate in the first place, so let us delete this section.
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2013 15:58:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 5 October 2013 15:58:17 UTC