W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

RE: Model Theory draft + tidiness

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:13:32 -0000
To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEOBCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Jeremy:
> > Tidiness had already vanished from the latest editors draft of the model
> > theory, which is the one I was working from.
Sergey:
> I'm assuming you are referring to
>
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0007/01-RDF_Mode
l_Theory.htm
>
> There, in Appendix A, Subsec 1, tidyness is defined in condition 3 for
> both urirefs and literals. The comment "graph is tidy on uriref nodes"
> should in fact say "... tidy on uriref and literal nodes", since label()
> is used both for uri nodes and literal nodes - unless Pat had something
> else in mind? Pat, did you?


I was referring to that version (dec 14 draft)

Near the beginning it says

"Notice that disjoint graphs do not have any blank nodes in common, by
definition, and that each separate occurrence of a literal is considered a
separate node (in contrast to urirefs); we will therefore distinguish
between literals and literal nodes."

I think there are some editorial issues that have left confusion.

Sergey, wanting tidiness, read tidiness.
Jeremy, wanting untidiness, read untidiness.

I think the document probably allows both readings.

Jeremy


PS You should see my cube, it might explain some things about untidiness.
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 13:13:59 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:44:00 EDT