W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

New RDF model theory (well, damn nearly)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:54:59 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210107b7a098e4da97@[]>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
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.


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)
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 19:54:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:03 UTC