W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: comments on IR/I (readability/bug?) in MT spec

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:04:31 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020703135129.039e9cb0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

It looks OK to me:  section 1.4 (in 29-Apr draft of MT) defines:

[[
   if E is a uriref then I(E) = IS(E)
]]

so I(rdf:type) is, by definition, IS(rdf:type)

...

Maybe the editorially confusing issue is that the term 'I' is used (a) to 
stand for an interpretation, and (b) as a denotation function that takes an 
RDF expression and returns its denotation according under the 
interpretation I.  Some textbooks I have seen use the identifier of 
interpretation (e.g. 'I') as subscripts on the various denotation functions 
and components that constitute the interpretation, so IR might be (R sub 
I), etc.  But that's hard work and error-prone in this medium.

Maybe introducing a denotation function called (say) ID, which yields the 
denotation of some RDF under an interpretation I, and defining that in 
section 1.4?

Or just stating up-front in section 1.4 that the name 'I' has this dual role?

#g
--

At 06:44 AM 7/3/02 -0400, you wrote:


>Comments from Ivan Herman in IRC. I've forgotten details of MT to
>be able to answer this myself, but there may at least be a readability /
>presentation issue here.
>
>Dan
>
><ivan> Hi Dan. I am reading the RDF Model document (...) and I found an
>irritating editorial problem (I think it is editorial).
><ivan> On the one hand it defines the interpretation with (among others)
>defining the IS function. So far so good.
><ivan> However, starting around section 3.1, my impression is that it uses
>'I' instead of 'IS' all the time. For example, it says 'I(rdf:type)',
>whereas, unless I misunderstand something, this should be 'IS(rdf:type)'.
>This is not only at one place.
><ivan> Do I grossly misunderstand something?
><ivan> (I guess my mathematical subconscious mind which resurfaces...)
><danbri> I'm not sure, without studying it. My mathematical subconscious
>has never surfaced.
>...
><danbri> Can you mail me something, or is the irc above ok?
><ivan> yep, the IRC is o.k.
><ivan> Thx

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 08:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT