- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:35:59 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I don't think that this is a problem.
The dependence on vocabulary is a technical trick, and any time you are
talking about entailment you should include the entire vocabulary.
So, the entailment below is valid, as the only interpretations that matter
interpret the entire relevant vocabulary, ....
Maybe there should be wording to this effect in some document, however.
peter
On 09/12/2012 05:03 PM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> RDF-ISSUE-97 (interpretations-depends-on-V): Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? [RDF Semantics]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97
>
> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann
> On product: RDF Semantics
>
> Currently, all notions of "interpretation" in RDF Semantics depend on a vocabulary V. An interpretation of a vocabulary V cannot interpret terms that are not in V. This leads to certain unexpected non-entailments, for instance:
>
> { :s :p "2"^^xsd:integer }
>
> does not XSD-entail:
>
> { :s :p "+2"^^xsd:integer }
>
> or, in RDFS semantics, the triple:
>
> { ex:s rdf:type rdfs:Resource }
>
> is not true in all graphs.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 21:36:28 UTC