W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: RDF Semantics - Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations (ISSUE-149)

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:26:56 +0200
Message-ID: <524C0300.9000503@vu.nl>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dear David,

Thanks for your comment. We have raised an issue for tracking your 
comment [1]. We will get back to you on this.

Guus, on behalf of the RDF WG

[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/149

On 02-10-13 07:15, David Booth wrote:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html
> Section 5.2 Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to a particular
> interpretation or set of interpretations.  At present the
> interpretations are implicit, and this is misleading because it suggests
> that the notion of a graph being true is somehow independent of an
> interpretation, whereas in fact the truth of a graph critically depends
> on the interpretations that are chosen.
> I suggest rewording the first sentence of this section from: "An RDF
> graph is true exactly when: . . . " to: "An RDF graph is true exactly
> when there exists an interpretation such
> that: . . . "
> Also, the verb "interpret" is being used in this clause: "2. there is
> some way to interpret all the blank nodes in the graph as referring to
> things,", but that causes confusion with the notion of an interpretation
> (which is a function).  It would be better to use a different verb at
> this point.
> Also point 4 mentions "these interpretations", but it isn't clear what
> interpretations are meant.  Perhaps it means the results of the verb
> "interpret" in item 2?  In which case, a different word should be used
> here also.
> Thanks,
> David
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:27:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:42 UTC