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

Re: New RDF model theory

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:34:31 +0100
Message-ID: <3B7CD717.3D1B2C6E@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


Some minor points:

well-foundedness
  I think that any output document should ensure that a reader is likely
to come across (some note about) the justification for sets that contain
themselves before an example. A simple way to achieve this is to have a
subsection entitled "The WellFoundedness of the RDF Model" visible in
the table of contents, containing some of Pat's comments.
On first reading there was a period when I was half expecting a
non-standard set theory with an axiom of anti-foundation. [Menzel's neat
trick is reminiscent, if I remember correctly, of some treatment of
anti-foundation that I saw well over a decade ago, so I am probably
misremembering, Peter Aczel's Anti-Foundation Axiom is the one I
explored at the time].


<unnamed point>
From intro to section 3: "the inference of (exists (?x) (foo (?x)) from
(foo baz)" Not if baz is a literal and not a resource (if there are any
such things :-)). Probably doesn't matter the more formal stuff is
clear. Perhaps we need to have clear separation or labelling of
normative and non-normative material.  [I have jumped the gun, and I am
imagining that much of this text will end up in the final documents!]


xml:lang
  It would not cost very much to indicate how xml:lang can be treated in
section 1.
e.g.
For serializations that permit language tagging from a set of language
tags LT (which we will take as containing "" for untagged items, cf RFC
3066), there is a fixed mapping XTL: LT x qLiterals to LV.





Jeremy
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 04:30:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:46 EDT