ISSUE 149 - wording in Semantics in "Intuitive Summary" subsection

In my opinion the divergence boils down to Pat believing that this
informative section should be more informal and David believing that it has
to be more formal.   The wording differences appear to amount to:

Current document:

An RDF graph is true exactly when:

1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all
refer to things,

2. there is some way to interpret all the blank nodes in the graph as
referring to things,

3. the IRIs in property position refer to binary relationships,

4. and under these interpretations, each triple S P O in the graph asserts
that the thing referred to as S, and the thing referred to as O, do in fact
stand in the relationship referred to by P.

David's proposal:

[[
An RDF graph is true under a given interpretation exactly when:

1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all
refer to things,

2. there is some way to map all the blank nodes in the graph to things,

3. the IRIs in property position refer to binary relationships, and

4. each triple S P O in the graph asserts that the thing referred to as
S, and the thing referred to as O, do in fact stand in the relationship
referred to by P.
]]



The difference is that David apparently believes that this section
should be about truth in an interpretation whereas the current wording
sits "above" this.


Given that David's proposal is not false, and that it also does
provide an intuitive summary, can everyone (who cares) live with
David's wording?  I can.  The response that would go out should be
fairly carefully written.

peter