- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:48:22 -0500
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > One more clarification: I've integrated something that Pat suggested several times already, namely that the interpretation is independent of a vocabulary V. Otherwise, Might be safest to keep things conventional for now. So... > 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 > """ Right, that seems to make sense. D-entailment without the RDFS part built in. This means that ill-formed literals are equivalent only if they are lexically identical, otherwise literals can be substituted for others with the same value (even if they use a different datatype, at least in principle. If the datatypes define values so that distinct type value spaces are always disjoint, then this case doesn't arise, of course.) Pat > > > 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/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 15:49:02 UTC