Re: Comment on RDF Model Theory

Thank you

Jeremy

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy. I have added the error to:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata.html
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> We suggest that the following text is in error:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#DTYPEINTERP
>> [[
>> If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any
>> rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x }
>> which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair < aaa, x >
>> in D:
>> ]]
>>
>> we suggest that this text is better:
>> [[
>> If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any
>> rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x }
>> union { "sss"^^aaa : < aaa, x > in D for some x and "sss" in the lexical
>> space of x }
>> which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair < aaa, x >
>> in D:
>> ]]
>>
>> This is motivated so that the D-entailments recorded in RDF Test Cases
>> do in fact hold.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#tc_cert
>> e.g.
>> tests
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-1
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-2
>>
>>
>> involving files
>> datatypes/test003a.nt
>> and
>> datatypes/test003b.nt
>>
>> With the currently worded RDF Semantics these entailments do not hold.
>>
>> Given that the spec is no longer in active development, we would be
>> happy with a note in the erratum document to this effect, for formal
>> consideration when this specification is next reviewed by a working group.
>>
>> Jeremy Carroll
>> David Turner
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:37:02 UTC