W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: updated draft of model theory

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:15:22 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210110b794f09cdc2a@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote:
> >
> > RDF Model Theory StrawDog proposal (draft 7/27/01)(typos fixed in 
>sections 1 thru 5, sections 6,7,8 added.)
>
>I digested that by translating it to larch...

To each his favorite way to digest, I guess.

>
>  http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFCoreMT.lsl
>  $Id: RDFCoreMT.lsl,v 1.1 2001/07/31 19:38:19 connolly Exp $
>
>In the course of getting it to sort check, I had some questions
>about the relationship of the set of resources with the LV
>set of literal values. I chatted with Pat a few minutes ago
>and I think we sorted it out.
>
>A few other details from my hardcopy:
>
> > 2. Interpretations
>
>[...]
>
> > All interpretations will be relative to a set of RDF nodes, 
>called the vocabulary of the interpretation,
>
>Larch has a lot of machinery for finite/denumerable sets as opposed
>to sets in general. In my larch formalization, I made the vocabulary
>of an interpretation a finite set. Is that a fair assumption?

Yes, I guess, though if someone ever wanted to extend RDF to allow 
some kind of triple-schema that had infinitely many instances, then 
it would be convenient to identify it with that infinite set of 
triples. Since the MT doesnt actually require finiteness, I'd rather 
not include it as an explicit condition in the absence of a pressing 
reason to do so.

>
>[...]
> > An interpretation I (of vocab(I)) is defined by:
> > 1. A nonempty set R of resources, called the domain or universe of I.
> > <comment> Whatever resources are, this a set of those. </comment>
>
>Are literals included in the domain of an interpretation?
>
>[answer after discussion with PatH: yes.]
>
>[...]
>
> > >> if E is a set of triples then I(E) = false just in case I(E') 
>= false for some asserted triple E' in E, otherwise I(E) = true.
>
>again, I used larch's finite set gizmo for such as set of triples.
>Is it fair to assume that the set-of-triples we're interested in are
>finite?

Yes, though again not strictly required by the MT.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 21:14:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:44 EDT