- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:48:49 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 12:43 PM 10/17/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >That is: it's essential that the interpretation of >an RDF document is a function of the document alone, >and doesn't vary according to the contents of other >documents. I think I agree with the thrust here, but I'd like to clarify something: it may be that access to another document will provide more detailed information about what is stated in a document (e.g. knowing the domain/range of a property from a separate schema may allow one to make additional inferences about resources used in an otherwise stand-alone document). The key requirement here seems to be that the interpretation of a document in isolation cannot be invalidated when some external document is also consulted. (This seems to be a kind of monotonicity.) Thus, I think what you are asking is that the truth under any given interpretation of some RDF document is invariant; consulting another document may restrict the interpretations that are considered to be models. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 15:58:55 UTC