- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:50:11 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: >> On 13 Feb 2006, at 22:12, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> -------- >>> Definition: E-entailment Regime >>> >>> An E-entailment regime is a relation between a subset of RDF graphs >>> and a subset of basic graph patterns. >>> >>> A basic graph pattern in the range of an E-entailment is called >>> well- formed for the E-entailment. >>> -------- >>> >>> Was this in version 1.623 when we took the vote?? If so, I >>> apologize for not noticing it at the time, but this is broken. >>> Entailment is a relationship between graphs, because *by >>> definition* it refers to truth of the graph in an interpretation. >>> Patterns don't have truthvalues in interpretations. So what it >>> should say is that an E-entailment regime is a relation between RDF >>> graphs, defined on a subset of RDF graphs. The graphs in the subset >>> are called well-formed for the entailment regime. (I'd avoid the >>> use of 'range' here, see below.) >> You're right. >> >> """ >> Definition: E-entailment Regime >> An E-entailment regime is a binary relation between subsets of RDF graphs. >> A graph in the range of an E-entailment is called well-formed for >> the E-entailment. >> """ >> >> (we need range here since the domain may not be the same as the >> range -- e.g., OWL-DL query answering). > > Ah, I see. But there are expository reasons for not using that very > word without explanation, see my earlier mail. > > Pat I have made the change to (v1.640) """ Definition: E-entailment Regime An E-entailment regime is a binary relation between subsets of RDF graphs. A graph in the range of an E-entailment is called well-formed for the E-entailment. """ which still uses the word 'range'. If there is an editorial proposal for a wording that does not use 'range', I'll consider it (as per the telecon decision) - the change is made now because it is at least better than the wrongly worded we did have. Andy > > >> --e. >> >> Attachment converted: betelguese2:smime 27.p7s ( / ) (00237A7A) > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 17:50:32 UTC