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

Re: resolving some semantics issues

From: Brian McBride <bwm@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:30:59 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030515094748.038b2680@localhost>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Pat,

Thanks for these.

At 16:45 14/05/2003 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>re. issue pfps-01, I propose that we accept it, and note that it has been 
>addressed by the following text (between **-**):
>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.
>]]

That's in
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#dtype_interp

Looks good to me.  Comments folks?

jjc - are you planning to do anything about my suggestion of a note in 
concepts about what datatypes don't work?


>re. issue pfps-03, I propose that we not accept it and note that the 
>purpose of the appendix is informative (for a certain class of readers) 
>rather than definitive. The document states:
>
>"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."

Some evidence that folks find the appendix useful would settle this.  I've 
asked on rdf interest.


>re. issue pfps-05, I propose that we accept it and note that it is 
>addressed by rule rdfs1 in section 4.2 of the editor's draft.
>
>(Jeremy, the cases you mention
>rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource
>rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource
>follow from the range constraints on subClassOf, which require 
>rdfs:Literal and rdfs:Class both to be of type class, then rule rdfs7a.)


jjc?


>re. issue pfps-09, I propose that we accept it and address it with the 
>text in section 3.4 of the editor's draft, viz.
>"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."

Comments?



>re. issue horst-01, I propose that we accept it and address it by 
>reference to the rule rdfs12 in the current editor's draft, together with 
>a note that the proof of the rdfs entailment lemma will discuss issues 
>arising in the subsequent email trail following this comment, with details 
>to be given in a later response.

How is Herman on this?  Since his comment is on the correctness of the 
entailment lemma, maybe we should have updated that before resolving it.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 05:31:23 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:31 EDT