- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:09:54 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
All done. Thanks Andy Pat Hayes wrote: > 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." Done (as a numbered list because feedback has been this style works better for non-English speakers). > > 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." Done. > > (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 Done. > Or if y'all don't like internal links, give an explicit reference to > section 12.3.2. > > Pat
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 22:10:13 UTC