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

Re: RDF Semantics: a partial review

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:34:38 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f6fbbd16a4d7ffe@[]>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>>>   >>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
>>>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.

As applied to the semantic conditions, it should not be deleted. Of 
course an interpretation need only satisfy the semantic conditions on 
its own vocabulary, right? What would it even mean to require it to 
satisfy conditions more broadly? This is in accordance with the 
normal textbook definitions of satisfaction and entailment.



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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 10:34:48 UTC

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