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

Two drafts of possible rec semantic doc (was: Re: Cut back RDFCore semantics doc)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:32:23 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210606bb15543eb43a@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>   http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_curt.html

The document has now been given a more thorough dressing-up as a 
self-contained document. The heading structure has been revamped 
slightly, the various entailments are defined in their appropriate 
sections, a few comments added about character string/XML 
document/xsd:string agnosticism and a couple of trivial but 
worthwhile lemmas added. Also there was a bug in the Lbase datatyping 
section from an earlier edit, which has been corrected.

It might still need a little XMLliteral terminology tweaking to 
exactly align with Concepts, noted by @@.

This version makes no reference at all to any kind of closures, ways 
of testing for vocabulary entailments, etc.. As an alternative, there 
is another version:


which is almost identical except it also has all the entailment rules 
included in a single appendix, with most of the text from the earlier 
editor's draft but without the 'entailment lemma' claims of 
completeness and therefore not requiring lengthy proofs, just as an 
informative listing of various valid inference principles.  Most 
readers won't give a damn about completeness in any case, and the 
rules themselves are informative and useful to record, I feel.

This version has almost all of the content of the original but avoids 
the problems which surround the task of proving completeness; and in 
either form is pretty much ready to go. (I could do another pass to 
put in more of the invisible glossary links, but I'll wait until the 
WG chooses one of the documents.)

>Pat also informed me he is about to be 'communications challenged' for a
>couple of weeks.

Actually I just decided to invest in a bicoastal cable modem 
connection so I should be OK in a few days, probably by next Monday.

>I'm not sure if Pat is still working on correcting the closure rules.

Pat is now thinking of rewriting the entire closure rule idea and 
replacing it with a more sophisticated notion of rdf-/rdfs- 
derivation, but that will be a different document.

>I am leaning towards proceeding with the curtailed document as a
>proposed rec candidate.  I am assuming that removal of an informative
>section should not force a second last call. DanC?   The closure rules
>can always be published separately as a note.  This way we can have a
>proposed rec candidate for review by Friday.

Please take the above as alternative candidates for such a document. 
I am happy with either alternative, the WG can decide. I will vote 
for _append over _curt, however, myself :-)

>I'm still concerned about the presence of the LBase form.  I'd like to
>be sure we have got things right, and I'm not sure what argument would
>convince me that the lbase section was correct, given the difficulties
>we have encountered with the closure rules.

Really, they have almost nothing to do with one another.  The Lbase 
is an alternative presentation of the MT, not a system of rules.

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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 22:32:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:06 UTC