- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:38:51 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Sorry, I should have done this earlier. (Thanks to Lee for pushing my nose to the grindstone.) Some changes needed to the wording in section 12.6. Third para, replace "An entailment regime is a transitive idempotent binary relation between subsets of RDF graphs. A graph in the range of an entailment regime E is called well-formed for the regime." by "An <i>entailment regime</i> specifies (1) a subset of RDF graphs called <i>well-formed</i> for the regime, and (2) an <i>entailment</i> relation between subsets of well-formed graphs and well-formed graphs." para 4, insert new second sentence. "Of these, only OWL-DL entailment restricts the set of well-formed graphs." para 5, second sentence, replace "For example, "-1"^^xsd:positiveInteger is inconsistent with respect to D-entailment." by "For example, the RDF graph _:x rdf:type xsd:string . _:x rdf:type xsd:decimal . is D-inconsistent when D contains the XSD datatypes." (Or, use some other example of a datatype clash from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#defDinterp )(Or, omit.) To help overcome some of Fred's objections to how this is worded, it might help also to link the first mention of the 'scoping graph' in the first SPARQL condition to the explanation at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html#BGPsparqlBNodes Or if y'all don't like internal links, give an explicit reference to section 12.3.2. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 18:39:14 UTC