W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: A possible typo error in RDFS Semantics

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:58:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4117750B.8020707@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: manu@chasqui.cu
CC: ecky@free.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


Is there any process for adding this as an erratum to RDF Semantics? 
There seems to be agreement that it was a typo.

Jeremy



Manuel Vázquez Acosta wrote:

> 
> The proposed change is correct; if you read carefully the paragraph you
> could notice a contradiction:
> 
> Since every rdfs-interpretation is an rdf-interpretation, if S rdfs-entails
> E then it rdf-entails E; but rdfs-entailment is stronger than
> rdf-entailment. ****Even the empty graph has a large number of
> rdfs-entailments which are not rdf-entailments,****
> 
> As you can see the same document states that some rdfs-entailments are not
> rdf-entailments; i.e : S rdfs-entails E => S rdf-entails E doesn't hold.
> 
> Manu.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ecky@free.fr
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 4:27 AM
> To: Pat Hayes
> Cc: Yuzhong Qu; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A possible typo error in RDFS Semantics
> 
> 
> Zitat von Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>:
> 
> 
>>>Hi, All
>>>
>>>At the begining of the second paragraph in section 4.4 RDFS
>>>Entailment , it says
>>> "Since every
>>><http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfsinterpdef>rdfs-interpretation is
>>>an <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfinterpdef>rdf-interpretation, if
>>>S **rdfs-entails** E then it **rdf-entails** E;".
>>>
>>>Maybe, it should be changed to:
>>>
>>>..., if S rdf-entail E then it rdfs-entails E;...
>>>
>>>Is it correct?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, you are correct.
>>
> 
> Are you sure ? If rdf-entail is more general than rdfs-entail and both of
> them
> represent some sort of implication, it is just the way like it is in the
> document and not the other way round.
> 
> 
>>That is how it should read, and it is an
>>elementary transposition error.  My apologies. Nobody noticed it
>>until now, Im afraid, in spite of the many extended readings and
>>checks that this document received. I will correct this at the first
>>opportunity for making a correction.
>>
>>Pat Hayes
>>
> 
> cheers
> ecky
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 12:59:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC