- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:54:59 -0700
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <v04210107b7a098e4da97@[130.107.66.237]>
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>: >We had a Semantic Web Advanced development discussion >about the issue > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources > >...... >But from Pat's presentation, it became clear that *any* >use of RDF that puts a document "on the pointy end of >an entailment arrow" motivates the distinction between >existentially quantified variables and genids. Right, I think that is the key point. The 'query' way of phrasing the discussion raises a lot of extraneous (in this context) issues. BTW, the new version of the MT makes the anon/uri node distinction somewhat sharper and (I think) clearer. It has existential quantification right in there. If we stick to the graph as the central model everything really is MUCH simpler. I think we should stop arguing about this now :-). However I have to confess to the group that I was reduced to using Wurd to write the document. If you trust Word:mac 2001 to produce useable HTML, the result is attached to this message. Let me know if you get any problems. Sorry it took so long. (There are still a few sections at the end not yet written, but the overall MT is now substantially complete, except for rdf:Alt. Ive made a few other modifications to the details and the wording, to conform to what we decided at the F2F, eg about not allowing subclass loops. I've taken out the 'discussion' sections (on skolemisation, content-versus-query and 'shared meanings') which are more discursive, to make a separate document; it was getting too long and most folk interested in a model theory aren't going to want to read that stuff anyway. I will try to get the damn thing completely done, except for the Proofs appendix, by the end of the week, at which point it should be puttable on a website. (Also I could re-do the powerpoint slides to fit this new version if y'all think that would be useful.) Any feedback welcome. Pat PS. Frank, I still havnt considered the issue you raised about rdf vocabulary having to have an 'associated' schema, because I now realise I have no idea what it means, or at any rate how it would effect the semantics. (Suppose there wasn't an 'associated' schema? What RDF graphs would change in meaning? )
--------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Attachments
- text/html attachment: RDF_Model_Theory_postF2F.html
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 19:54:49 UTC