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

Re: More semantic comments

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:13:33 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b23b9f5e6b865c7@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>Global sp:
>truthvalue or truth-value (both occur)

All now truth-value

>After figure 1
>
>[["whatever"^^ex:b]] => [["whatever"^^<ex:b>]]

OK

>
>[[1.6 Unlabeled nodes ...]] => [[1.6 Blank nodes ...]]
>
>suggest-delete
>[[See http://www.w3.org/...#rdfms-identity-anon-resources for a
>sumamry and pointers to further discussion on this issue.]]
>
>[[unlabeled nodes]]=>[[blank nodes]] * 2
>
>[[Notice however that since two unlabeled nodes cannot
>have the same labal, ]]
>==>
>[[Notice however that since two different blank nodes are not equal, ]]

All rewritten. All references to 'unlabeled' purged.

>
>
>before Monotonicity Lemma
>[[
>Finally, the following is a trivial
><<suggest-add: but important>>
>consequence ... entailment,
><<suggest-delete:
>but it may be worth stating ...
>satisfy it.
>>>
>]]
>(I don't think it's appropriate or clear to talk about many 
>implemented systems here)

done

>
>3.1
>possible spell construing or constructing? subsets of the universe

Sentence deleted

>
>3.2
>[[When the RDFS vocabulary is added, ... semantic conditions.]]
>unclear
>suggest-replace (in brackets)
>[[(The RDFS part of the formal semantics does cover domain and
>range conditions for the properties used in this vocabulary)]]

Done

>
>Given that you have gone for the MAY vocabulary on extensions, I 
>think in 3.3 you are trying to say:
>
>[[.. lesser burden on implementors ]]
>suggest-add:
>[[
>Semantic extensions MAY strengthen the semantics to iff.

Done


>]]
>
>3.3.1
>[[There is however no way in current RDF to specify exactly ...]
>==>
>[[It does not specify exactly ..]

done

>
>
>3.4
>
>I found the following unintelligible, possibly because I don't have 
>access to the XSD example in your (or mayber Peter's) head.
>
>[[Users shoudl take care to distinghuish the value space ...
>identical when viewed as class members.]]

Yes, it is rather odd. The plain fact is that the XML schema specs 
are logically contradictory when one thinks of a value space as a 
set. Enquires have determined that XMLSchema value spaces are not 
sets, but something like categories or algebras. The same thing, seen 
as a member of two different value spaces, is considered to be two 
different things. This is simply impossible in RDFS if we interpret 
value spaces as classes. So I was trying to give the reader a warning 
about this without being so coarse as to imply anything derogatory 
about XML schema.

>
>4.
><<suggest-delete>>
>[[Implementors who wish to check any kind ...
>backchaining on the clousre rules, for example.]]
>
>(any normative suggestions about impl techniques may degrade the 
>value of others)
>

Done.

>That's it - no more comments at this stage.

OK. Many thanks. Right now Ive finished fixing the proofs (they read 
much better now) and am working on the boilerplate, references, etc.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Monday, 11 November 2002 18:13:03 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:05 EDT