- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:14:52 -0600
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
See http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_finalCall.html It still needs some HTML fixing, internal anchors and links adding, etc. but the content should now be pretty stable. If anyone can see any obviously missing pointers to other docs, please suggest where they can go. Figure 2 still needs re-drawing. I will be getting that stuff done in the next couple of days. I have made several small fixes to prose here and there, fixed the buggy definition of instance, rewritten the containers description prose, added a brief word (section 3.2.4) about poor lonely rdf:value, revamped the Datatyping rules section 4.3 to keep the different topics more clearly separated. (Dan, the only part that is listed as 'required' is your minimal datatype scheme that just checks for lexical wellformedness.) Ive taken out things that people found controversial, including the XSD 'warning', and tried to fix the things that people found confusing. Ive also brought the stuff in appendix A into line with the rest. I have incorporated rdf:XMLLiteral into the RDF entailment section, which turned out to be easier than I thought it would be (it just needed a tweak to the definition of Herbrand interpretation. God, that Herbrand guy was smart. ) Note there is a new RDF closure rule now. The micro-detailed way things work out in this version of the MT is as follows. 1. In RDF entailment, it is valid to canonicalize properly formed XMLLiteral-typed literals. 2. In RDFS entailment, you also know that rdf:XMLLiteral is a datatype and you can use it as a class name. 3. In datatype entailment (with any set of datatypes, even the empty set :-), ill-formed XML in an XMLLiteral counts as a datatype violation. BTW, I now distinguish between a datatype *violation* (new term; if anyone has a preferred alternative, it's easy to change it), which is a graph where some typed literal contains a string which is not in the correct lexical space; and a datatype *clash* (same term as before), which is where a datatype value is in the wrong value space. The former are syntactic errors, the latter are kind of inconsistent. And I say that dtype-savvy reasoners MAY post an error when they find a violation (not SHOULD), which lets them do typechecking if they want to but doesn't require it, since they can choose to just carry on doing RDFS inference if they want to, and nothing will break. Pat PS. I havn't (yet) included an appendix based on Patrick's XSD ontology, but I could easily put it in if the WG thinks it is worth having in there, maybe marked 'informative' (?). It seems a shame to waste it :-) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 23:14:40 UTC