- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:34:47 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...] > The model theory assigns interpretations directly to the graph, which is > taken as being the primary RDF syntax, in the sense that two RDF documents, > in whatever lexical form, are syntactically equivalent if and only if they > map to the same RDF graph. We will refer to this as the 'graph syntax' to > avoid ambiguity, since the bare term 'syntax' is often assumed to refer to > a lexicalization. > > A graph which is like an RDF graph except that it violates the last condition, > ie has two or more nodes with the same label, will be called an untidy graph. that 'last condition' seems to refer to a part that I can't find (but it is repeated and so it is clear what is meant here). [...] > <comment> ( An earlier version of the model theory included anonymous nodes > in the vocabulary of a set of triples, but it seems clearer to omit them > when considering graphs. ) </comment> fully agreed with that, after all anonymous nodes are like 'blank' node tokens (as you write later on) [...] > Anonymity lemma 1. Suppose E' is like E except that at least one anonymous > node in E is labelled with a URI in E'. Then E does not entail E'. *** We tested that (with Euler) and (after correcting a NullPointerException) it seems to be ok Suppose E is pat1.nt _:x <b> <c>. <d> <e> _:y. and E' pat2.nt <a> <b> <c>. <d> <e> _:y. then we get ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, @@ assert <d> <e> []. @@ assert [] <b> <c>. [1]CALL: <a> <b> <c>. [1]FAIL: <a> <b> <c>. # Generated with http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#27.051 on Tue Aug 21 12:21:58 CEST 2001 # for query file:/n3/pat2.nt # given [file:/n3/pat1.nt] # No proof found for file:/n3/pat2.nt in 1 steps (122 steps/sec) ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` so E does not entail E' (but E' does entail E) [...] > <comment> The subsets referred to in subPropertyOf are sets of pairs. </comment> > <comment> The M&S seems to imply that the proper condition on subClass and > subProperty is that the extensions are *proper* subsets, ie the identity case > is disallowed, and hence 'subclass loops' are illegal. If we decide to change > this to allow 'subclass loops', as assumed by DAML+OIL, then "proper" should > be deleted from these conditions. </comment> I would go for "to allow 'subclass loops', as assumed by DAML+OIL" -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 06:35:22 UTC