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

Re: minimizing the textual changes to RDF semantics

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:41:42 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f0dbc2b6706d153@[10.0.100.76]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: connolly@w3.org, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
>Subject: minimizing the textual changes to RDF semantics
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:08:26 -0600
>
>>  In order to bring down the temperature, allow me to modify my
>>  suggested changes to the PR document. The result should be exactly
>>  similar to the semantics described in 2004a, but with less change to
>>  the actual PR text, and is visible at
>>
>>  http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004b.html
>>
>>  see especially
>>
>>  http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004b.html#defDinterp
>>
>>  Just to clarify: my current proposal is a minimal revision of the
>>  wording and style of presentation of section 5.1, in partial response
>>  to criticisms from Herman, but does not change the actual semantics,
>>  in response to observations by Peter.  I have tried to make the
>>  textual changes minimal in order to avoid as much controversy as
>>  possible at this stage.
>
>Well, I believe that the semantics ARE changed by these changes.  In
>particular, the vocabulary of a D-interpretation would be required to
>include the URIs of all datatype names in D.

Not quite. That is, the definition says that a D-interpretation of V 
is an rdfs-interpretation of (V union {aaa: <aaa,x> in D}.  But it 
does not require that these aaa's are in V itself.

>  Similarly the dropping of the
>requirement that the value space of a datatype be a subset of LV is a
>change to the semantics

Well, forget that one, since that is rendered impossible by the RDFS 
conditions on rdfs:Datatype, and Im certainly not going to propose 
changing those (even though in some grand sense it would in fact have 
been a good idea, its not a good idea at this stage.)

>.  Whether these changes are a good idea or even
>whether they change any D-entailments is a separate issue.

I think at this stage the changes are only cosmetic and can be 
considered to be editorial rather than substantive.

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 16:41:45 UTC

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