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@[10.0.100.5]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: 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?

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
>>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?

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
>>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.

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.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 EDT

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