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

Re: RDF Semantics: rdfs entailment lemma

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:48:13 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f07bbd97e0df081@[]>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>  >
>>I have rewritten the text along these lines but without altering the
>>actual table (except as noted below). I hope this is now sufficiently
>The text now includes all literals in IR (= the domain of sur).
>It seems that the well-formed XML literals themselves should not
>be in; only their values are.
>Note, for example, that sur is not defined for them.

This is in fact harmless since these elements of IR are never denoted 
in this model; but now corrected in any case.


>  >Indeed. This does greatly simplify everything and, as you say, is not
>>actually used anywhere. At the time it was written there seemed to be
>>an expository value in considering plain literals to be 'outside' the
>>vocabulary, but this small value, if any, is clearly outweighed by
>>the formal awkwardness that results.  I will refrain from drawing the
>>obvious moral, since it resounds to my disadvantage.
>>On reflection I have made the following changes:
>>1. A plain literal is considered a name (so vocabularies may contain
>>plain literals).
>>2. The definition of simple interpretation of V requires that LV
>>contain plain literals *in V*
>>3. The first two semantic conditions on plain literals in a simple
>>interpretation refer to plain literals *in V*.
>>4. The definitions of LV in the three Herbrand constructions are
>>modified appropriately to refer to plain literals in the appropriate
>>graph (respectively in G, C and D)
>Not in the third one: there LV is {x in IR : sur(x) t Literal in D}
>as we noted

Er...yes.  Which is correct, right? That is, you are here correcting 
my email rather than commenting on the document, so no change is 

You can view the latest changes at


Please reply , CCing to www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to indicate if your 
comments have now been adequately addressed.



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 Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:48:14 UTC

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