Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

On 31 Jan 2006, at 18:31, Pat Hayes wrote:

> And speaking now quite objectively, I do feel that this entire  
> semantics business has made the spec worse rather than better, and  
> that it is getting worse with every iteration. (There is an  
> elegant, simple, robust definition based on entailment, which I  
> suspect is probably what the original comments deploring the old  
> instance/subgraph definition had in mind; but this is not that.)

I wish we could find a more elegant and simple definition satisfying  
my main requirement of upward compatibility. By dropping this  
requirement, the most elegant would be the plain definition based on  
subgraph matching - without any mention to entailment.