- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 02:18:28 -0500
- To: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
... just pushed. Many more internal definition/reference links now in place. If I can just get those two references into the ReSpec biblio, its just about done. I hope what it says about rdf:langString and xsd:string is correct. Ill-formed langStrings are impossilbe (because they would be syntax errors) but ill-formed xsd:strings *are* possible, but very unlikely because no surface syntax could express them. Is that right? I have deleted the "glossary" from the old 2004 document. (Any objections?) I have added a (brief) section on datasets. There is one significant tweak to the definition of simple entailment (section 5). Entailment between graphs is unchanged, but that a *set* of graphs entails G is now defined to mean that the union of S entails G. That means that the any set of graphs is logically equivalent to their union, respecting the identity of any blank nodes shared between them. It also means that we can state, without qualification, that union is like logical 'and'. And it is in line with how systems actually treat blank nodes. The newest draft has text in section 5.1 fully explaining the consequences of this. It is still the case that the merge of a set of graphs is entailed by the set and entails every member of the set (as before), but this does not mean that the set of graphs is logically equivalent to the merge, since it can be the case that G entails every member of S but does not entail the union of S (when two graphs share a bnode.) Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 15 May 2013 07:18:55 UTC