W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:44:13 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f0abc2b57bc3bff@[10.0.100.76]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
>Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:52:29 -0600
>
>>  >From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>>  >Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
>>  >Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:15:40 +0000
>
>[...]
>
>>  >Are there other changes to entailment being proposed for RDF, even changes
>>  >that do not appear to affect OWL?  I would view any such change in a
>>  >negative way.
>>
>>  Just to clarify: as of my last message, there are no changes to any
>>  RDF entailments now being proposed. The only change, apart from
>>  tightening up the wording in places, is that the D-semantic
>>  conditions now only require that literal values of literals in the
>>  actual vocabulary are in LV.

In fact, as I have since dredged back into memory and the text (in 
the bb version) now indicates, it is a consequence of the RDFS 
conditions (on rdfs:Datatype, cf. rule rdfs13) that all items in the 
datatype classes, ie all items in the value space of all datatypes 
referred to in the datatype map, are in LV.  So ignore the above 
remark.

>This brings the D-semantic conditions
>>  in line with the other conditions in a way that Herman requested, but
>>  makes no difference to any any entailments.  The class extension of a
>>  datatype name is the value space of the datatype.
>>
>>  Pat
>
>Either there is some change to the semantics, in which case the change
>should not be made at this late date, or there is no change to the
>semantics, in which case there is no reason to make the change.
>
>The only changes that should be made at this stage are changes that have no
>effect whatsoever, e.g., fixing typographical erros.  As this does not
>appear to be the case, I don't see any reason to make the change.

Some textual changes are required. Herman noted that the PR text 
incorrectly applies I to aaa when aaa is not required to be in the 
vocabulary (the domain of the I mapping). The addition of the phrase 
"union {aaa: <aaa,x> in D for some x} " corrects this.  Note that 
this does not require aaa to be in V, in the same way that the 
definition of "RDFS-interpretation of V " does not require the RDFS 
vocabulary to be in V.

My own view is that this does not amount to a change in the 
semantics. I am willing to consider this as fixing a typographic 
error, though 'expository' might be better than 'typographic'.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:08 UTC