- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:19:47 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
One more clarification: I've integrated something that Pat suggested several times already, namely that the interpretation is independent of a vocabulary V. Otherwise, the definition can be rephrased as: """ Let D be a datatype map. We define an LV-interpretation(D) of a vocabulary V (or, LV-interpretation with respect to D of a vocabulary V) as a simple interpretation I of V which satisfies the following conditions: *LV semantic conditions.* - if <aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd in V with I(ddd) = x, * if sss is in the lexical space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss), * otherwise IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV """ AZ Le 14/08/2012 11:14, Antoine Zimmermann a écrit : > Clarification: an rdf-interpretation would be a LV-interpretation wrt > the datatype map that contains rdf:XMLLiteral, xsd:string and rdf:HTML. > But it would not be *simply* that. > > Here is a proposal for the semantics of LV-entailment: > > [...We have to assume that datatypes and datatype maps have been > formally introduced before...] > > """ > Let D be a datatype map. We define an LV-interpretation(D) (or, > LV-interpretation with respect to D) as a simple interpretation I which > satisfies the following conditions: > > *LV semantic conditions.* > - if <aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd with I(ddd) = x, > * if sss is in the lexical space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss), > * otherwise IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV > """ > > Can Pat check if this is correct and sufficient? > > > > AZ > > Le 14/08/2012 10:54, Antoine Zimmermann a écrit : >> >> >> Le 21/05/2012 16:08, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker a écrit : >>> RDF-ISSUE-90 (LV-entailment): Define a simple form of “literal value >>> entailment” [RDF Semantics] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/90 >>> >>> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak >>> On product: RDF Semantics >>> >>> Define a simple form of graph equivalence that is like graph >>> isomorphism, but allows substitution of literals by equal-valued other >>> lexical forms. This would help with test cases and the like. It could >>> be defined as a form of entailment (LV-Entailment, a small extension >>> to Simple Entailment) or as an extension to graph isomorphism. >>> >>> (Would the old RDF-Entailment then simply be LV-Entailment over a >>> datatype map that contains only rdf:XMLLiteral?) >> >> >> No because an rdf-interpretation also has: >> >> "x is in IP if and only if <x, I(rdf:Property)> is in IEXT(I(rdf:type))" >> >> >> > -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 09:20:11 UTC