- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:54:39 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>,Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>,www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>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?
Editor's drafts are all in mercurial. Browse from dvcs.w3.org, but it's not easy. Maybe you just want to like at the tr versions.
- Sandro
>
>Thanks,
>David
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 12:54:37 UTC