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

I don't understand.  Although there is some sloppiness here, as conditions
1-4 talk about refer and don't explicitly mention "in the interpretation",
surely the "under a given interpretation" provides the correct context.

peter



On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> On Oct 4, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I can't. This wording is confusing, since the conditions 1-4 simply do not
> refer to the "interpretation" mentioned in the first line, and
> uninformative, since it fails to provide the intended intuitive gloss for
> what "interpretation" means.
>
> I would prefer to delete the section entirely. It is only in the document
> as a sop to the idea that the semantics should provide intuitions in a
> 'tutorial' style, and as we had earlier decided to avoid such tutorial
> material, and as this section is creating such difficulties already, let us
> simply remove it from the document. Its removal will not change any actual
> content in the document.
>
> Pat
>
> >  The response that would go out should be fairly carefully written.
> >
> >
> > peter
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>