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

Re: RDF Semantics: a partial review

From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:09:12 +0100
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1AB521FE.DA5DEC7D-ONC1256DD7.0057A689-C1256DD7.005E4BB5@diamond.philips.com>

>>>>   >>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.

The table we are talking about, "RDF semantic conditions", has
three parts, none of which seems to need the additional phrase:
- part 1 deals with the universe, not the vocabulary
- parts 2 and 3 both make *explicit* that they talk about
  a certain name in V
Therefore, it seems confusing to add that this table holds "for
all names in (V union rdfV)".


Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 12:10:00 UTC

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