W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: RDF Semantics: use of functions IEXT / ICEXT

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:15:40 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b4eba802cca343f@[]>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>RDF Semantics document,
>last call version, 23 january 2003
>These comments were mailed earlier to the WebOnt WG [1].

For the record, the editor accepts these comments as editorial and 
will try to find ways to respond the them appropriately.

>A consequence of the (new) setup of the RDF semantics
>is that for each occurrence of IEXT(x) or ICEXT(x), it
>should be clear that x is in the domain of the function
>involved.  (For IEXT, this domain is the set IP.
>For ICEXT, the domain is the set IC; compare my
>other comment on this to rdf-comments [2].)
>For example, in Section 3.3 the semantic conditions on
>subClassOf and subPropertyOf take care of this explicitly.
>It seems that this point is not taken care of completely
>consistently throughout the document.

  I will do a check of the document looking for cases where this may 
be ambiguous, and add wording to clarify as needed.

>In Section 3.1, RDF interpretations,
>in the table defining an rdf-interpretation, IEXT(I(rdf:type))
>is used before it is clear that I(rdf:type) is in the
>domain of this function (i.e., the set IP).
>Switching the first two lines of this table would remedy this.

Will do.

>Similarly, it seems appropriate to move the semantic
>conditions on IC and IP in Section 3.3:
>>  IC contains ...[many items]
>>  IP contains ...[many items]
>to become the first conditions, as each of the other
>conditions in this table actually uses one or more of these

OK, I will probably do this or something similar. The ordering of the 
semantic conditions is not considered significant (since they have to 
be understood as conjoined) but if a re-ordering will be an 
expository improvement then I am happy to make this change.

>The semantic conditions on rdfs:range and rdfs:domain in Section 3.3
>do not yet incorporate explicit domain assumptions as just
>discussed.  It seems that additions such as the following need
>therefore to be made:
>If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range))
>[then x is in IP and y is in IC] and
>[if, in addition,] <u,v> is in IEXT(x) then
>v is in ICEXT(y)
>If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:domain))
>[then x is in IP and y is in IC] and
>[if, in addition,] <u,v> is in IEXT(x) then
>u is in ICEXT(y)

I will check the wording and make similar changes if needed to 
clarify the intent.

Pat Hayes

>The last call versions of these statements (i.e., this text
>without the [...]-additions) seem to be
>remnants from the April 2002 version of the RDF MT, where
>IEXT as well as ICEXT had all of IR as their domain.
>Herman ter Horst
>Philips Research
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0067.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0348.html

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@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 15:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC