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

Re: resolving some semantics issues

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:41:10 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210600bae9648c4913@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>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?

BTW, I could insert an explicit list of the datatypes which DO work, 
following the list used in the OWL docs. Might that be helpful?

>>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
>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 

I belive that Euler has checked that all the obvious cases are in the 
closure, BTW.

>>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
>>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.

I am pretty sure that the entailment lemma itself is OK, but if you 
want to wait on this until I finish writing up a proof of it, that 
would be fine. About 2 weeks, provided we don't change the XML 
literals or the lang tag decisions.

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 Thursday, 15 May 2003 11:40:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC