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

Re: RDF Semantics: rdfs entailment lemma

From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:38:55 +0100
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1CB924EE.7BF0DF88-ONC1256DDE.0044B0D1-C1256DDE.00458BBA@diamond.philips.com>

><snip>
>>  >
>>>I have rewritten the text along these lines but without altering the
>>>actual table (except as noted below). I hope this is now sufficiently
>>>clear.
>>>
>>
>>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.

The correction in the table is clear.
There is now some confusion with the sentence before the table
where the definition is also given.
The text would become clearer when something as I put here between
brackets [] would be inserted, just like you do in the table:
"First, the domain of sur is the set containing just the URI references,
literals [other than well-formed XML literals,] and blank nodes occurring
in D.  (This is the universe of the rdfs-Herbrand interpretation,
defined below.)"

As I tried to explain earlier, for me this takes away the cycle in the
text, and thereby greatly facilitates understanding.

[...]



I found a typo: 
Section 7.1, first sentence: chracterized

Herman
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 07:45:27 GMT

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