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 16:52:51 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f75bbd1bde06ba4@[10.1.31.1]>
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
>>>>>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.
>>
>>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)".

Oh, I see your point: I thought you were indicating that it was 
harmful rather than redundant.

OK, now removed.

Pat


>  >
>>Pat
>>
>>>
>
>Herman


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:52:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT