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

Re: review of July 15 draft of RDF Semantics document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030805.094721.68771635.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: review of July 15 draft of RDF Semantics document
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:31:46 -0500

[...]

> >>  >Silliness:
> >>  >
> >>  >rdf-interpretations do not just ``impose extra semantic conditions on crdfV
> >>  >and typed literals with the type rdf:XMLLiteral''.  Why not just say that
> >>  >rdf-interpretations impose extra semantic conditions?
> >>
> >>  Because this draws attention to the fact that they do not impose any
> >>  extra conditions on the rest of the RDF vocabulary.
> >
> >Well, sort of, but I consider the use of crdfV misleading.
> 
> Im afraid I disagree.
> 
> >It is true that there are rdf-interpretations that do not impose conditions
> >on (the denotation of) rdf:subject.  However, any rdf-interpretation that
> >includes rdf:subject in its vocabulary does impose conditions on (the
> >denotation of) rdf:subject.
> 
> Only those which arise from its being a simple 
> interpretation. The text uses the word "extra 
> semantic conditions" to indicate this distinction.

Huh?  One of the RDF axiomatic triples is
	rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property .
Doesn't this impose an ``extra semantic condition'' on rdf-interpretations
that is on something outside the central RDF vocabulary?
	
[...]


peter
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:47:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT