- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:02:24 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat-- Nice work! A few initial comments (editorial): * Section 0 says "The *vocabulary* of a graph is the set of URIs that it contains", while Section 1 says "All interpretations will be relative to a set of URIs, called the *vocabulary* of the interpretation..." This could be read as effectively saying that there are two vocabularies of URIs (one for the graph and one for the interpretation), which I don't think you mean, since, e.g., in the latter sentence you go on to associate this "interpretation" with "an interpretation...of an RDF graph". * Section 3 (the anonymity lemmas) says "This means that there is no valid RDF inference process which can produce an RDF graph in which a single anonymous node occurs in triples originating from several different graphs." This can be read in (at least!) two ways, one of which is wrong. If I group "in which a single anonymous node occurs" with "an RDF graph" (and don't also apply it with the rest of the sentence), a counter-example is when I merge triples originating from several different graphs, only one of which contains a single anonymous node (the other graphs contain no anonymous nodes). The resulting graph contains a single anonymous node from triples originating from several different graphs, but since only one of those originating graphs contained an anonymous node in the first place, everything is OK. Something like the following would be clearer, I think: "This means that there is no valid RDF inference process which can produce an RDF graph containing a single anonymous node from several different graphs each containing a distinct anonymous node." More later. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 11:04:20 UTC