- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 03:46:28 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
This is being far too pedantic for the informal status of the section in question. peter On 10/04/2013 08:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Oct 4, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> 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. > Consider: > > "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, > But suppose that they refer to things that are not in the universe of the given interpretation, then this is false. So to make it true, we have to change it to > > 1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all refer to things in the universe of the given interpretation, > > and so on in the same vein. And then this becomes a redundant restatement of the truth conditions given previously, just as opaque to someone who wants to read about truth and reference but does not want to wrestle with the idea of an interpretation. No doubt David would respond, but readers should be *obliged* to think about interpretations, and then my reply would be, OK, but if so then this section is inappropriate in the first place, so let us delete this section. > > Pat > >
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2013 10:46:59 UTC