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

RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:57:37 +0200
To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEJPCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> 15: Semantics Issues
> We have several semantics issues:
>
>   horst-01
>   pfps-01
>   pfps-03
>   pfps-05
>   pfps-09
>
> That I suspect we are ready to close, but we need a formal motion to
> close them.
>
>

For pfps-03 I note that the LC document and the current editors draft both
say:

[[
The editor believes that both of these descriptions, and also the closure
rules described in section 4, are all in exact correspondence, but only the
directly described model theory in sections 1- 3 should be taken as
normative.
]]

we could decide that that was sufficient, or Pat could add the theorem that
Peter asks for.


On pfps-01, I would be prepared to second the following proposal, if Pat
were to propose it:

PROPOSE: to accept pfps-01 and address it with the following text (**'s show
changed text):
[[
The datatype map which also contains the set of all pairs of the form
<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#sss, sss>, where sss is a built-in
datatype which has well-defined lexical and value spaces and a
lexical-to-value mapping and is named sss in XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
[XML-SCHEMA2], eg decimal, string, is referred to here as XSD.
]]


On pfps-09, I would be prepared to second the following proposal, if Pat
were to propose it:

PROPOSE: to accept pfps-09 and address it with the text in section 3.4
Datatyped Interpretations of the editors draft, for instance:
[[
RDF provides for the use of externally defined datatypes identified by a
particular URIref.
...
Formally, let D be a set of pairs consisting of a URIref and a datatype such
that no URIref appears twice in the set, so that D can be regarded as a
function from a set of URIrefs to a set of datatypes: call this a datatype
map.
]]

For pfps-05 I am not convinced that the editors draft addresses it.
I believe it is partially addressed by:
rule rdfs1 in section 4.2
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#rdfs_entail
but that the table of axiomatic triples seems to omit the following:

rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource
rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource


On pfps-05, I would be prepared to second the following proposal, if Pat
were to propose it:

PROPOSE: to accept pfps-05 addressed by rule rdfs1 in section 4.2 of the
editors draft.


I haven't got to horst-01.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 09:57:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:29 EDT