- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:09:09 +0100
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, Am 11.12.2013 16:23, schrieb Antoine Zimmermann: > Here is a concrete proposal for changes to be made in RDF 1.1 Concepts > and RDF 1.1 Semantics. > > tl;dr: concepts defines datatype maps as a mapping from some IRIs to > datatypess, and introduces the terms "recognized datatype IRIs" (the > domain of the datatype map) and "recognized datatypes" (the range of the > datatype map). > > Using this terminology, the modifications to semantics are surprisingly > minimal. Almost all text relating to D-entailment stays the same as in > RDF 1.1 Semantics CR. > > However, I request that datatype map are used in the semantic condition > for D-entailment. Once this is set, the other semantic conditions in > other entailment regime can stay almost identifical. > > I also ask Michael to review my proposal. The phrasing, if retaining the > idea, can be improved. I'm perfectly fine with introducing this terminology for the domain and range of the datatype map. It's always good to have concrete terminology for basic concepts (in order to name and conquer! :-)), and there was no so far for these things, AFAIR. Just as there is terminology for other parts of datatype semantics, such as "lexical space" and "value space", or "lexical forms" for the members of the lexical space. Best, Michael
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 22:09:32 UTC