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@[]>
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 .
>>  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.

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.


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC