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

Re: mt new draft

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:54:26 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101015b83fc3c22f21@[65.212.118.193]>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>On Wed, 2001-12-12 at 13:22, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  Finally, at last, there is a new version of the MT document at
>  > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-current-draft.html
>  >

OK, that version is now dated 14 December and has the following 
changes, in response to Dan's comments below. I suggest that this 
version be archived and announced to WebOnt, as per today's telecon 
discussion. Or, if you like, I can tell them to get it from the above 
URI, which should be stable enough to use.

>Good stuff... I did a quick review; I hope the
>artifacts of using the #rdfig channel and the
>scratchpad won't get in the way...
>
>
>RDF Model Theory (draft) 2001-12-12, Pat Hayes
>posted by dajobe at 2001-12-12 19:52
>dajobe: as usual, I've checked it into CVS so you can see the
>differences
>dajobe: to previous drafts which were published at the same URL
>
>DanC: issues: (a) datatypes. explicitly called out by the editor, but
>could be linked to issues list

I scanned the issue list but didn't see one that would characterize 
it! (I get the impression that this has gotten bigger than any one of 
our named issues.)

>DanC: I'd like to see more motivation for the use of blank nodes. it
>just says "seems more in keeping with [RDFMS]" which doesn't do our
>extensive discussions justice.

OK, point taken. I put in a few sentences and a pointer to the issues 
list where one can track on into the discussions in the archives. If 
you would prefer something different, or want to see other issues 
addressed, say what or suggest a change.

>DanC: I've been asked for more justification of this point in SWAD
>meetings.

(Might be helpful if you could expand on what it is that is worrying 
people. I am at a bit of a loss here, in that this seems such an 
obvious point that I have trouble following what kind of 
justification people could possibly be asking for; its a bit like 
finding people worried about the need to have feet on the ends of 
ones legs.)


>DanC: issue: "since such value spaces as integers cannot be fully
>axiomatized in first-order logic.
>DanC: " seems to appear out of nowhere. Delete it or explain it better.

OK,  deleted

>DanC: issue: "Herbrand Lemma. Any RDF graph has a satisfying
>interpretation.
>DanC: " this needs discussion, as we discovered in a telcon a couple
>weeks ago.
>DanC: I think you can say false things in RDF. e.g. using
>ont:disjointFrom

Hmmm.  The proof of the lemma is simple, and surely  ont: 
disjointFrom just isn't part of the RDF vocabulary, right? I think 
the point is that the semantic restrictions associated with the ont: 
vocabulary go beyond simple entailment.

>DanC: "tidying the resulting set" under 2.2 <- editorial left-over.

Fixed.

>DanC: "namespace entailment" <- don't like this term. layered
>entailment, vocabulary entailment, maybe. hmm...
>

OK, replaced with 'vocabulary entailment'


>DanC: RDFS reserved vocabulary <- actually, there is a semantic
>constraint for some of those other terms: isDefinedBy rdfs:subPropertyOf
>seeAlso
>
>http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-12-12#T21-15-11

Oh damn.  Rats.  Then I will have to include all that vocabulary in 
all those tables, just to say this piffling constraint. Grumble 
grumble.

I reserve the right to put this off to the next draft.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 15:54:34 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:03 EDT