Re: Review of the RDF based semantics document (CLOSE ACTION-316)

That is exactly what I had in mind! Thanks

Ivan

Michael Schneider wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>>>> -----------
>>>>
>>>> Section 4.2, second paragraph (definition of I),
>>>>
>>>> "provided that d is a datatype of D, I(u) = d, and" ->
>>>> "provided that d is a datatype of D, IS(u) = d, and"
>>>>
>>>> Actually... I think a usual abuse of the syntax is to use the I(E)
>>>> formulation for an interpretation when this means, mathematically, is
>>>> IS(E) where 'IS' is the mapping defined in 'I'. As this shorthand is
>>>> used all over the place, it might be worth noting it here.
>>> I have deliberately chosen to use "I" instead of "IS", since
>>>
>>> * the RDF Semantics explicitly defines it this way in the "semantic
>> conditions for ground graphs" (Section 1.4 of the RDF Semantics), and
>>> * the RDF Semantics does use "I" instead of "IS" consistently in the
>> whole document (see for example the table on "RDFS semantic conditions"
>> in Section 4.1 of the RDF Semantics).
>>> I don't want to deviate from the practice used in the RDF Semantics
>> document without any good reason. One good reason would be that some
>> nomenclature is used throughout the OWL 2 spec in a different form than
>> in the RDF Semantics, but this is not the case here.
>>> So I am not intending to change this.
>> I do not ask you to deviate from the RDF Semantics. However, the table
>> in 1.4 of the RDF semantics _explicitly_ defines, say, I(E) as being
>> equal to IS(E), ie, introduces a function notation for what is, in fact,
>> not a function but a tuple. And that is perfectly consistent within the
>> RDF Semantics text.
>>
>> Now you are right that this document explicitly refers to the RDF
>> Semantics, so your usage of I(u) instead of IS(u) is mathematically
>> correct. But this forces the reader to go back to the RDF semantics text
>> to understand this, in spite of the fact that this section stands by
>> itself.
>>
>> I think what has to be done is actually very simple: to add somewhere
>> some text which says: "following the practice, as also introduced in
>> section 1.4 of the RDF semantics, the notation I(x) will also be used to
>> denote IS(x)" or something like that.
> 
> Ah, thanks! I remember that I planned to do this when I first read through your mail, but simply forgot it later. I have put an adaptation of your text right after the definition of a D-Interpretation in Section 4.2. The "IL" function is covered by the text, either.
> 
> DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21212&oldid=21211>
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =======================================================================
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf