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

RE: more comments Re: top-level Comment on lBase

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:23:24 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEHMCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> >
> > MUST:
> > replace "This document address these two requirements." with
> > <<<
> > These two requirements  are primarily addressed by the RDF Model Theory
> > (ref) and the RDF Test Cases (ref).
> >
> > This document describes an alternative complimentry approach.
> > >>>
>
Dan:
> I wrote the status section.  Per
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0256.html
> I propose a simpler change:

>	s/This document addresses these two requirements./
>	  This document is motivated by these two requirements./

> Does that satisfy your concern?

Sorry I missed that ...

That's certainly an improvement in the status.

I am convinced that the Model Theory needs to be in the references, and
mentioned in the introduction, and an acknowledgement that using model
theories as the basis for layering, while not unproblematic has not been
disastrous.

In my view, those requirements are fully addressed by the MT and Test Cases.
This document legitimately takes another view of the same requirements. But
it should not diminish the value of our REC track docs.

A possible change which would clarify that, would be section 1.

e.g.
Add
<<<

Model theoretic semantics has already proved a useful tool for discussing
and resolving issues related to layering in the semantic web. Specifically,
the semantics of OWL [in preparation] is related to the semantics of RDF and
RDFS [RDF MT], by model theoretic means.

>>>

And then move on to the difficulties with this approach in section 2.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 08:23:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:31 EDT