Re: model theory (W3C publication stuff)

>Dan Connolly wrote:
> >

Dan, did you take a look at the stuff I wrote on rdfs, and are you OK 
with it, given your worries about the earlier draft? I didnt really 
change the MT itself, but tried to make the text a better indication 
of the intended relationship between rdfs and rdf:type.

> > pat hayes wrote:
> > [...]
> > >  Now, who can help me get this into
> > > W3-document-ship-shape?
> >
> > I can probably help there.
>
>ok... I made a certain amount of progress:
>
>  RDF Model Theory Proposal
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-mt/rdf-mt
>  Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:38:47 GMT
>
>This meets the W3C publishing constraints that we've managed
>to automate. There are others; I haven't worked on those.

If there is a guide somewhere I could try doing it myself.

>  http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form

  seems to need access privileges which I lack, or maybe have forgotten....

>I'd rather not do all this stuff again...

Quite. I will try to avoid your having to. Many thanks to you and to Aaron.

I propose to try to improve the layout, and make the following 
changes to the content:

1. Remove the summary of Ntriples syntax and replace it with a URI to 
an Ntriples defining document (ANYONE GOT THIS YET??)

2. Remove the sections concerning rdf:Alt from the MT altogether, and 
add a note saying explicitly that this feature is not described (AS 
IT STILL UNDER DISCUSSION?? OR WOULD IT BE BEST JUST TO KEEP MUM 
ABOUT IT?)

3. How about doing that for containers more generally? Anyone got 
strong views on that one way or the other?

4. Ditto for reification: any views?

5. I could put the 'lemmas' back in, probably best as an appendix 
though rather than in the main text.  Again, comments in either 
direction?

Thanks.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 20:04:35 UTC