W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Re: RDF semantics explosion

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:33:39 +0100
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF11EEA96D.6CD4D7C5-ONC1256E1B.0080A837-C1256E1B.00816C92@agfa.be>

Glad to see your conclusions :) and I agree and prefer

It was actually good to see some test cases in the discussion
(good for fixing running code bugs :))

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

                      pat hayes                                                                                                         
                      <phayes@ihmc.us>          To:       w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org                                                         
                      Sent by:                  cc:                                                                                     
                      w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  RDF semantics explosion                                                       
                      15/01/2004 00:19                                                                                                  

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


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


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.)



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
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 18:33:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:09 UTC