Re: semantic extension

*Isn't this covered by:

General monotonicity lemma*. Suppose that S, S' are sets of RDF graphs with
every member of S a subset of some member of S'. Suppose that Y indicates a
semantic extension of  X, S X-entails E, and S and E satisfy any syntactic
restrictions of Y. Then S' Y-entails E.

I agree that the possibility of syntactic restrictions should be mentioned
more prominently than it currently is.

peter


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <
antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:

> Pat,
>
>
> In your draft, you define semantic extension a bit differently from RDF
> 2004. In RDF 2004, the definition was such that OWL DL was a semantic
> extension of RDF by allowing extensions to make syntactic restrictions on
> graphs. This is not the case anymore.
>
> It makes the new definition cleaner, but then one may wonder what is the
> status of OWL DL. If we want to have:
>
> "if A simply entails B then A must also entail B under any extended notion
> of entailment"
>
> then OWL DL is not a semantic extension and somehow violate the conditions.
>
> So, I'm wondering: does it matter? do we go back to the text in 2004? or
> do we simply add a note that says that, of course, A and B in the sentence
> above must be in the language of the extension, otherwise A entails B under
> that semantic extension does not even mean anything.
>
>
> Best,
> --
> 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 66 03
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://zimmer.**aprilfoolsreview.com/<http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/>
>
>