W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: response to comment pfps-04

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:05:38 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b03ba66f30c76a6@[10.0.100.86]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

To RDF Core WG members:

Messages from me with these subject lines which are directed to Peter 
and CCd to the WG are NOT official WG responses or dispositions. 
Think of them as a private conversation between Peter and me (at this 
stage) which I am CCing to the WG for information purposes only, and 
as possible material for WG discussions of how to produce an 
appropriate disposition.  -Pat
------

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Subject: response to comment pfps-04
>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:03:42 -0600
>
>>
>>  The closure rules for RDF are incomplete.  There are XML documents
>>  without an enclosing language tag that have the same canonical form as
>>  XML documents with and enclosing language tag.  This means that the
>>  RDF entailment lemma is false.
>>
>>  ----
>>  This comment is correct and the error will be corrected.
>>
>>  The new closure rule will simply state
>>  FROM
>>  xxx aaa lll .         where lll is a well-formed XML typed literal .
>>
>>  INFER
>>  xxx aaa mmm .       where mmm is a well-formed XML typed literal with
>>  the same canonical form as lll.
>>
>>  where 'canonical form' is defined explicitly using the construction
>>  in the Concepts document.   I would also like to add prose like this:
>>
>>  "In rule rdf2, 'same canonical form' should be interpreted so as to
>>  take into account any language tags which may be present. For
>>  example, this rule will sanction the following inference:
>>
>>  <ex:sub> <ex:prop> "<rdf 
>>lang="fr"><word>chat</word></rdf>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
>>  ->
>>  <ex:sub> <ex:prop> "<word>chat</word>"@fr^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
>
>I don't believe that this works.
>
>>  Any objections/ comments?
>>
>>  Pat
>
>Well, it appears to me that there needs to be more work in making sure that
>the treatment of XMLLiteral is the same in Syntax, Concepts, and
>Semantics.  Right now, it appears to me that there are differences.
>
>peter

I agree, and will try to get this fixed. To the fullest extent 
possible, I propose to remove all XML-related definitions, 
structures, etc.  from the semantics document and simply refer to the 
Concepts document, using terminology defined there. And if I do use 
any examples (like the above, which I now see doesn't work) I will 
get Jeremy or Graham to write them for me.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   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 Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:04:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:48 EDT