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

Re: Model Theory - minor nits

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:41:51 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210115b7bb11bc518a@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>nitpickings (cringingly):

Thanks, v. useful. Mostly OKs, except:

>o section 1, para 1
>
>  The forward reference to RDFS and the 'trust me' the sets are well
>  founded is a bit defensive.  Delete it, or move it later?

I'll try to say it better. I put a note there in response to a worry 
someone else had about leaving this until later. Maybe the thing to 
do is to put all the discussion early on, but in a 'technical aside' 
so its easy to skip if one isn't interested.

>o section 2, para before 2a
>
>  typo "qua nodes"?

Not a typo, but I'll try to say it in anglo-saxon.

>o section 2a, para 3
>
>  Each arc (triple) labeled with <s p o>
>
>  Arc's are labeled with p, not <s p o>, possibly:
>
>  Each arc from node s to node o with label p ...

Right, I was being sloppy. The arc goes from a node labelled with s 
to an node labelled with o and is itself labelled with p.

BTW, I notice that some people (also the M&S) write triples in the 
order p s o.   Is this likely to confuse people, and should I put in 
a note emphasising that I use s p o to conform to Ntriples?

>o section 5, para 2
>
>  "germane to questions of bag identity"
>
>  I'm confused by the bag identity stuff.  A bag is a resource which is
>  identified by a URI, not by its contents.  Maybe equals, equivalence?
>  Or am I missing the point here?

No, this is a real issue.  The usual way of thinking about bags 
(containers more generally) is that they *are* determined by their 
contents, so there seems to be a mismatch between RDF and the rest of 
the world here. We could just dodge it by saying 'equivalence'; but 
in any case I'm actioned to remove the containers stuff from the 
working paper, so lets get back to this later.

>o section 5, para 3
>
>  "containers are a series on IR"
>
>  a series on IR union LV?

Yes. I changed  (IR union LV)  to IR here to allow the 'distributive' 
reading of rdf:Alt when an alt was used as a subject; but to hell 
with trying to be clever with rdf:Alt, is the conclusion I now have 
come to.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 19:40:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:39 EDT