- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:10:33 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Here are a few small editorial comments ranging over different parts of the document. "Semantic extensions of RDF MUST conform to the semantic conditions for simple and RDF interpretations described in Sections 1 and 3.1" However, Section 3.1 is about RDF entailment. RDF interpretations are considered in the rather large space between the start of Sections 3 and 3.1. In order to make this reference correct, this text could be made into a new section 3.1. === Section 5 "Exactly how these sets and mapping are defined is ..." Add s to mapping. === Just before Section 5.1 it is stated that "so that ... would violate the general monotonicity lemma" however this lemma is only treated (not much) later. Perhaps this could be made somewhat more reader-friendly? === The two tables in the proof appendix that define the rdf(s) Herbrand interpretations, mention four times "contains a triple ..." In each case, the triple is determined uniquely. So it would be clearer to replace this by: "contains the triple ..." Herman
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 12:11:22 UTC