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

Semantics review: LC issues

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:41:14 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306182041.14237.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



Further small comment, suggest delete "at the time of writing this document" 
from section 5; that is always implicit - and you are talking about xsd 
version 1.0 datatypes not any futurue ones.


I've gone through the issue list to try and understand where the current 
editors draft sits, here's my thoughts:


RESOLVED ISSUES

horrocks-01
rdfs:comment semantics
not accepted
raised
Ian Horrocks
accepted

NO impact.


pfps-01
XML Schema datatypes
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html
RESOLVED: we accept comment pfps-01, and that it is addressed by the 
revised text in the semantics editor's draft.

Still true, but the quoted text has changed.


pfps-03
translation to Lbase
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none
not accepted

no impact


pfps-05
RDFS closure rules
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html
RESOLVED: we accept comment pfps-05, and it is addressed by by rule rdfs1 
in section 4.2 of the Semantics editor's draft

more importantly: we no longer claim the entailment lemma.


pfps-07
typed literals with lang tags
accepted
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

complete change, comment still accepted, but now we no longer have the beasts.

pfps-08
typed literals
not accepted
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
not accepted
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html
RESOLVED: we accept comment pfps-08, and 3.4 in the semantics editors draft 
addresses it.

The section number has changed to 5, the detail minuted is still fine.

pfps-10
untyped literals
Resolution
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

no change addressed by LV = ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal))  in section 4.


pfps-21
namespace v vocabulary
accepted
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
accepted

I did not notice any violations.


timbl-02
reification semantics
not accepted
raised
Tim Berners-Lee
none

the promised health warnings are included.
no change


qu-01
Domain of rdfs:member
not accepted
raised
Qu Yuzhong
accepted

no change


qu-02
rdfs:member functional?
not accepted
raised
Qu Yuzhong
none

no change


qu-03
Ontology subset of RDFS
none
raised
Qu Yuzhong
none

no change


reagle-03
must use xsd:?
not accepted
raised
Joseph Reagle
accepted

no change


xmlsch-07
datatype definition
Resolution
raised
XML Schema WG
accepted

(I have not checked this one)

=================

Open Issues

horst-01
RDFS entailment lemma
none
raised
Herman Horst
none

does not seem to be addressed ...
other than by dropping the completeness claim.

pan-01
Extending to FOL
none
raised
Jeff Z Pan
none

hmmm ... we should have discussed this by now.
if we are going to accept even a little bit of it we have been heading in the 
wrong direction.



pfps-02
Lbase translation of XML Literals
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

not considered.


pfps-04
RDF closure rules
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

The specific example has been addressed by changes in XMLLiteral (in 
concepts).
The general problem has been addressed by dropping the claim to completeness.



pfps-06
typed XML literals and LV
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

This comment is addressed both in section 3 green box and in section 5 green 
box.



pfps-09
datatypes
none
raised
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
none

I don't really understand the comment.
The current draft is better vis-a-vis URIs and datatypes - but RDF does not 
provide a mechanism for tying the two togther, and I can only sympathize with 
Peter.




qu-03
Ontology subset of RDFS
none
raised
Qu Yuzhong
none


not considered
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 14:41:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:57 EDT