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

Re: New RDF model theory

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:45:03 -0700
Message-Id: <v0421010cb7a1e06da2cc@[]>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Nice work!  A few initial comments (editorial):
>*  Section 0 says "The *vocabulary* of a graph is the set of URIs that
>it contains", while Section 1 says "All interpretations will be relative
>to a set of URIs, called the *vocabulary* of the interpretation..."
>This could be read as effectively saying that there are two vocabularies
>of URIs (one for the graph and one for the interpretation), which I
>don't think you mean, since, e.g., in the latter sentence you go on to
>associate this "interpretation" with "an interpretation...of an RDF

Right, thanks, that was an incomplete-editing bug, I will fix that.

>*  Section 3 (the anonymity lemmas) says "This means that there is no
>valid RDF inference process which can produce an RDF graph in which a
>single anonymous node occurs in triples originating from several
>different graphs."  This can be read in (at least!) two ways, one of
>which is wrong.  If I group "in which a single anonymous node occurs"
>with "an RDF graph" (and don't also apply it with the rest of the
>sentence), a counter-example is when I merge triples originating from
>several different graphs, only one of which contains a single anonymous
>node (the other graphs contain no anonymous nodes).  The resulting graph
>contains a single anonymous node from triples originating from several
>different graphs, but since only one of those originating graphs
>contained an anonymous node in the first place, everything is OK.
>Something like the following would be clearer, I think:  "This means
>that there is no valid RDF inference process which can produce an RDF
>graph containing a single anonymous node from several different graphs
>each containing a distinct anonymous node."

Right again. I meant that the triples came from two different graphs, 
ie one triple came from one graph and another triple came from a 
different graph, but they share an anonymous node in the merged 
graph.  I will rewrite this more carefully to avoid misinterpretation.

>More later.

Thanks for feedback.


(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 17:05:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC