Re: editorial change

Hmm.

I think that that would be a change (but probably one that has little
effect).  I believe that this was put in precisely so that predicate
IRIs could map into something that is not in IR, but that if the
predicate IRI was also a subject or object it had to map into IR to
have a chance of being true.

peter


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> Peter, I just noticed that the simple interpretation mappings state:
>
> 4. a mapping IS from IRIs into (IR union IP)
>
> and that the ..union IP.. is redundant, since (as noted later in the text) IP may overlap with IR. SInce on the next line, IL is defined as a mapping into IR without mentioning IP, this is also misleading. I think this should read
>
> 4. a mapping IS from IRIs into IR.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Pat
>
> PS what sent me checking this was the possibility in the generalized syntax of having a literal in property position. You can probably retrace my steps at this point.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Thursday, 27 June 2013 21:20:28 UTC