Re: changes to RDF Semantics

On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:

> I updated semantics as described in the message I sent out previously and to
> include generalized RDF graphs (anticipating the change to Concepts)
> 
> The changes amount to
> 
> 1/ marking some sections as informative (mostly the sets of entailment rules
> - remember that in 2004 there was an issue because RDF entailment rules were
> incomplete)

OK. Good catch.

> 
> 2/ adding in words near the beginning that the semantics works unchanged
> for generalized RDF

Where? I can't find this.

> 
> 3/ modifying the wording about RDF datasets meaning their default graph

I extended that wording to this:

<p>RDF datasets MAY be used to express RDF content. When used in this way, a dataset SHOULD be understood to have at least the same content as its default graph. Note however that replacing the default graph of a dataset by a logically equivalent graph will not in general produce a structurally similar dataset, since it may for example disrupt co-occurrences of blank nodes between the default graph and other graphs in the dataset, which may be important for reasons other than the semantics of the graphs in the dataset.</p>

which tries to address Andy's concerns. 

> 
> 4/ adjusting wording about completeness of entailment rules

OK
> 
> 5/ removing ISSUE boxes

OK
> 
> I also fixed up some inter-document links.

Great.

Pat

> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> peter
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 26 June 2013 19:18:55 UTC