Re: Updated semantics doc

>Herman, Peter,
>
>After the flurry of recent discussion about the semantics doc, there is a
>proposal to RDFCore to consider a minor expositional change to the 
document
>along with some fixes to types.
>
>This proposal is made in the agenda for Friday's telecon, agenda item 10 
of
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0053.html
>
>I would be grateful if you would look at these changes and say that they 
are
>acceptable to you.
>
>Brian
>

The changes are acceptable, although the suggestion has not 
been adopted not to require all values of a datatype in a 
D-interpretation,
to bring the definition of D-interpretation more in line with the rest 
of the RDF Semantics document, and to allow a completeness lemma for 
D-entailment.

The small error that I noted in the definition of D-interpretation
(in connection with the vocabulary formed by the datatype URIs in D)
has been corrected, in an elegant way.

Herman