- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 01:11:13 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Pat or Sandro, Regarding this discussion: [[ On 09/12/2013 12:33 AM, David Booth wrote: > [Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org please, as it isn't > relevant to Jeremy's comment. All follow-ups there please.] > > On 09/11/2013 10:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: [ . . . ] >> But each IRI denotes one thing, in all >> possible interpretations. > > No, in *each* possible interpretation, not in *all* possible > interpretations. I.e., > > For any interpretation I and URIs U1 and U2, > (U1=U2) => (I(U1) = I(U1)) > > NOT: > > For any interpretations II and I2, and URIs U1 and U2, > (U1=U2) => (I1(U1) = I2(U2)) > > I.e., the uniqueness does not hold *across* interpretations. It only > holds within *each* interpretation individually. > >> (The current RDF 1.1 semantics socument >> makes thie very explicit, by the way.) > > Yes, I noticed that, and the current wording is *incorrect*. It needs > to be fixed, as it wrongly implies that RDF may only be viewed from the > perspective of a single RDF interpretation, and that is simply *wrong*. ]] In looking for the offending statement in the current RDF Semantics draft I am not currently able to find it. So I'm wondering if the draft was changed since I noticed the problem. How can I view previous versions of the editor's drafts? Thanks, David
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 05:11:41 UTC