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

[closed] Re: RDF Semantics: use of functions IEXT / ICEXT

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:37:16 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 14:15 24/02/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote:

>>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.

Include [closed] on the subject line.  Pat, please can try to remember to 
do this.


>>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 
>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 Tuesday, 25 February 2003 09:36:28 UTC

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