Re: layering (5.3,5.10): comment on ``reserved vocabulary''

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a first-order same-syntax model theory
Date: 20 Jun 2002 10:55:17 -0500

> On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 17:21, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > Good.  A proposal.
> 
> thanks for the quick feedback...
> 
> > 
> > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> > Subject: layering (5.3,5.10): a first-order same-syntax model theory
> > Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:26:58 -0500
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > Additionally, owl reserves the following vocabulary:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > I have no idea what ``reserves the ... vocabulary'' could mean.
> 
> basically, it means that these symbols denote something
> in every OWL interpretation.
> 
> I guess the allusion to [RDFMT] wasn't sufficiently explicit...
> 
> "An interpretation assigns meanings to symbols in a particular
> vocabulary of urirefs. Some interpretations may assign special meanings
> to the symbols in a particular namespace, which we will call a reserved
> vocabulary."
> 
>   -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020429/#urisandlit

Hmm.   I suggest (to Pat) that he change this.  ``Reserved vocabulary''
usually means syntactically reserved.

However, I don't know of a replacement phrase for this.

peter