W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

RDF-ISSUE-149: LC comment: Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations [RDF Semantics]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:51:04 +0000
Message-Id: <E1VRK1I-0005xf-UO@shauna.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-149: LC comment: Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations [RDF Semantics]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/149

Raised by: Guus Schreiber
On product: RDF Semantics

Comment by David Booth: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0010.html

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html

Section 5.2 Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to a particular 
interpretation or set of interpretations.  At present the 
interpretations are implicit, and this is misleading because it suggests 
that the notion of a graph being true is somehow independent of an 
interpretation, whereas in fact the truth of a graph critically depends 
on the interpretations that are chosen.

I suggest rewording the first sentence of this section from: "An RDF 
graph is true exactly when: . . . " to: "An RDF graph is true exactly 
when there exists an interpretation such
that: . . . "

Also, the verb "interpret" is being used in this clause: "2. there is 
some way to interpret all the blank nodes in the graph as referring to 
things,", but that causes confusion with the notion of an interpretation 
(which is a function).  It would be better to use a different verb at 
this point.

Also point 4 mentions "these interpretations", but it isn't clear what 
interpretations are meant.  Perhaps it means the results of the verb 
"interpret" in item 2?  In which case, a different word should be used 
here also.

Thanks,
David
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 10:51:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC