reopen ISSUE-97 and reclose next week - should interpretations be relative to a vocabulary

I propose that we reopen ISSUE-97 and resolve it differently at the
teleconference next week.

ISSUE-97 concerns whether

ex:john ex:age "22"^^xsd:integer
{xsd:integer}-entails
ex:john ex:age "+22"^^xsd:integer

or the empty graph RDFS-entails
ex:john rdf:type rdfs:Resource

In the 2004 version of RDF these entailments do *not* hold, the first
because there are {xsd:integer}-interpretations where "22"^^xsd:integer is
in the vocabulary but "+22"^^xsd:integer is not.   I believe that all RDF
implementations do *not* work this way.  Instead they take the very
reasonable idea that all interpretations involved in the reasoning must
interpret all the vocabulary in both the LHS and the RHS.

The semantics should be modified to make it clear that entailment should
work the way that everyone thinks it does.  The current editor's draft of
the semantics changed interpretations so that they are no longer relative
to a vocabulary, but instead interpret all IRIs and all well-typed literals
(and no ill-typed literals).  I believe that no changes are needed in any
other WG document, and that the change conforms to the universal
implementation of RDF.   This change has the desired effect and should be
adopted by the working group.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications