Re: substantive semantics change?

Pat:
>>Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>In the absence of arguments that this change is editorial and not
>>>substantive, I ask that the chairs reopen the PR decision, in order
>>>to consider the resolution of Herman's last call comments which
>>>triggered this change.
>>
>>As I recall, Pat is travelling in the early part of this week.  This
>>will hamper clarification of this issue.
>>
>>The suggestion is that a substantive change, i.e. one visible in a
>>test case, has been inadvertently made without consulting the WG.
>>If true, that is unfortunate.
>
> My understanding however is that it is not true, and that as I said,
> no test cases are affected.
>
> Full disclosure: there is a case which COULD have been a test case
> but isn't, which would have been affected if had been a test case,
> which is
>
> { } entails { _:x rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .}
>
> which is not an valid LC2-entailment.  That is, the current semantics
> requires that some containermembership properties must exist, even if
> nobody talks about them.

This is indeed right (and nice to see those {} btw)
but I was nor sure if my actual code was doing the right
thing, but it did, at least we couldn't find a proof thing for

_:X rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .

(whereas we could find evidence for
rdf:_9270 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .
and for both case nothing else was given)

The MT gives a very clear account and that is really valuable!


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/