# Re: update to MT document

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:33:15 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020128194152.038d7ec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

At 12:23 PM 1/28/02 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>An updated version of the MT document can be found at
>
>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-draft-J.html

Overall, I think this is looking very good.  I have some minor nits and
queries, but nothing that needs to delay publication, I think.

Section 0.3:  Definition of instance, implies that:

:a :b :c .                   [1]

is an instance of

_:x :b :c .                  [2]
_:y :d :e .

Is this really what you meant?
I think not:  it fails the instance lemma.  Suppose
<I(:a),I(:c)> in IEXT(I(:b)), but
NOT( <x,I(:e)> in IEXT(I(:d)) ) for all x.
Then [1] does not entail [2].

Section 1.6, final paragraph:  typo?

Section 2, para starting "Any process ...":

"S always entails E" took a couple of passes to unravel.  At first glance,
the "always" here is redundant ("S entails E" is defined over all
interpretations).  I think something like "... S entails E for any
application of the process, ..." would have been easier to follow.

Section 2:  Chewing over separability and strong Herbrand lemma...

Graph E:   _:x bbb ccc .

Graph E':  aaa bbb ccc .

E' is separable from E, but E is not separable from E'.  Right?

I think I'm satisfied that it might work, but I'm not happy with the
explanation.  If an interpretation assigns false to any ground triple not
in E, then what triple will have the value TRUE so that E (above) is satisfied?

It's not clear to me in the Herbrand lemma construction of I, what value is
assigned to IEXT(bbb) corresponding to the triple in graph E.  I suppose it is

<node(_:x),ccc>

where node(_:x) is the blank graph node corresponding to _:x in the triples
above.  In this case, assigning false to the ground triple:

node(_:x) bbb ccc .

would also cause graph E to be false under that [I+A]

[mumble.  I think I'm losing the plot here.  It's getting late.]

Section 6:

rdfs2, rdfs4a, rdfs6, rdfs7, rdfs8, rdfs9: do you mean to allow literals in
the subject positions here?

#g
--

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/  \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 16:36:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC