- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:34 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

Le 24/02/2012 18:03, Pat Hayes a écrit : > Yes you may be right. Give me a day to check out the details and then > probably follow your suggestion. I think this happened because in one > incarnation of the sematnics, 'names' were only UIRrefs. However, as > a general change, I would like to make all RDF interpretations give a > meaning to all IRIs, so that there is no need to mention the > vocabulary V all the time. This will simplify a lot of arcane > mathematical detail and edge cases, and might fix this one as well. Yes, that would be a very nice simplification. That would also solve the fact that "apparent tautologies" are not entailed by all graphs, like: { :s :p :o } does not entail { :x rdf:type rdfs:Resource } which is weird. AZ > > Pat > > On Feb 24, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > >> I don't read this in the same way. >> >> Here is the text: >> >> "If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is >> any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa:< aaa, x> in D for some >> x } which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair< >> aaa, x> in D:" >> >> >> So the interpretation interprets the things in V (whatever V is) >> and it interprets the datatype URIs. It does not necessarily >> interpret all the literals in the lexical space of all datatypes in >> D. >> >> and the condition on literals say (I emphasize *in V*): >> >> "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" >> >> >> My suggestion is to simply say that: >> >> "If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is >> any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa:< aaa, x> in D for some >> x } union {"lit"^^aaa: lit in LS(d) for some<aaa, d> in D } which >> satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair< aaa, x> >> in D:" >> >> and we add the following condition: >> >> "if<aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd such that >> sss in LS(x), IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss)" >> >> >> That is, we force interpretations to interpret all literals in >> datatypes of D. It's probably what was initially assumed but it's >> better to make it explicit. >> >> >> >> AZ >> >> >> Le 24/02/2012 16:23, Pat Hayes a écrit : >>> >>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:43 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker >>> wrote: >>> >>>> RDF-ISSUE-84 (d-entailment-typed-literals): "Bug" in >>>> D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form [RDF >>>> Semantics] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/84 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann On product: RDF Semantics >>>> >>>> With the current spec, we have the following situation for >>>> D-entailment, when the datatype map contains xsd:decimal (for >>>> instance): >>>> >>>> :foo :bar "2"^^xsd:decimal . >>>> >>>> *does not* D-entail: >>>> >>>> :foo :bar "2.0"^^xsd:decimal . >>>> >>>> This is because an interpretation is defined relatively to a >>>> vocabulary V, so that only the names in V are interpreted. >>> >>> Yes, but the definition of D-entailment requires the >>> interpretations to interpret the vocabulary of literals which are >>> meaningful under the datatype mappings in question. See >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#defDinterp >>> >>> >>>> If a triple contains a name that is not present in V, then the >>>> triple is necessarily unsatisfied. This is made very explicit >>>> in the RDF Semantics document: >>>> >>>> "If the vocabulary of an RDF graph contains names that are not >>>> in the vocabulary of an interpretation I - that is, if I simply >>>> does not give a semantic value to some name that is used in the >>>> graph - then these truth-conditions will always yield the value >>>> false for some triple in the graph, and hence for the graph >>>> itself." >>>> >>>> Since "2"^^xsd:decimal and "2.0"^^xsd:decimal are two different >>>> names (although denoting the same thing), the first triple can >>>> be satisfied by a D-interpretation that does not interpret >>>> "2.0"^^xsd:decimal, >>> >>> No, because this would not be a D-interpretation. It is not >>> defined on the required vocabulary. >>> >>> Pat >>> >>>> thus the second triple does not follow from the first one. >>> >>>> >>>> This is probably not in line with how implementations work and >>>> the problem seem to be present in OWL 2 RDF-based semantics as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- 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 83 36 >> 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 > > > > > > -- 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 83 36 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 17:33:02 UTC