Re: RDF Semantics: a partial review

...

>
>>  >>In view of this, it seems better to assume that each
>>>>rdf(s)-interpretation satisfies all of rdfV (and
>>>>therefore satisfies all RDF axiomatic triples).
>>>
>>>Yes, of course (now you have pointed it out :-). I will make this
>>>change. Peter has previously expressed a dislike for the 'crdV'
>>>construction, which was introduced only to keep the closures finite
>>>in any case and is therefore now irrelevant.
>>
>>It seems that this is change is not consistently applied to the
>>document.
>>The definition of rdfs interpretation includes "which contain only
>>names form V union rdfV union rdfsV".
>>This phrase should be removed, and similarly for rdf interpretations.
>
>It seems harmless, since this is the vocabulary of the 
>interpretation. But it may indeed be misleading, so I have deleted it 
>as you request.


The phrase "for all names in (V union rdfV)" is not yet deleted from
the definition of rdf-interpretations.


Herman