RDF semantics explosion

Gentlemen, I apologize for setting off a rocket in a firework store. 
I guess I asked for a yes/no decision and I got a decisive no.

This is just to reassure you that I have backed off from the original 
suggested change, and so y'all can breathe more easily and kind of 
relax.  The current proposal really, really makes no substantial 
changes to the semantics, does not impact OWL or any entailments or 
test cases, and is only a small correction to a slight mathematical 
slip in the way that the datatype conditions were stated.  Really.

There are two versions of it. This one

http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004bb.html#defDinterp

is in my view the clearest exposition.  On the other hand

http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004bc.html#defDinterp

makes the fewest changes to the PR text so may be preferable for 
logistical reasons. This only adds the extra vocabulary condition, 
nothing else.

Apart from typo corrections, all the changes are in section 5.1 
between "if D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation..." and (in the 
first case) the table and the paragraph below starting "The fourth 
condition ensures...".  They are formally exactly equivalent, but it 
takes a bit of work to find out (you have to check through the RDFS 
semantic conditions.)

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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes