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

Re: mt new draft

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 12 Dec 2001 15:16:53 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1008191814.6586.19.camel@shoal>
On Wed, 2001-12-12 at 13:22, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Finally, at last, there is a new version of the MT document at 
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-current-draft.html

Good stuff... I did a quick review; I hope the
artifacts of using the #rdfig channel and the
scratchpad won't get in the way...

RDF Model Theory (draft) 2001-12-12, Pat Hayes
posted by dajobe at 2001-12-12 19:52
dajobe: as usual, I've checked it into CVS so you can see the
dajobe: to previous drafts which were published at the same URL

DanC: issues: (a) datatypes. explicitly called out by the editor, but
could be linked to issues list

DanC: I'd like to see more motivation for the use of blank nodes. it
just says "seems more in keeping with [RDFMS]" which doesn't do our
extensive discussions justice.
DanC: I've been asked for more justification of this point in SWAD

DanC: issue: "since such value spaces as integers cannot be fully
axiomatized in first-order logic.
DanC: " seems to appear out of nowhere. Delete it or explain it better.

DanC: issue: "Herbrand Lemma. Any RDF graph has a satisfying
DanC: " this needs discussion, as we discovered in a telcon a couple
weeks ago.
DanC: I think you can say false things in RDF. e.g. using

DanC: "tidying the resulting set" under 2.2 <- editorial left-over.

DanC: "namespace entailment" <- don't like this term. layered
entailment, vocabulary entailment, maybe. hmm...

DanC: RDFS reserved vocabulary <- actually, there is a semantic
constraint for some of those other terms: isDefinedBy rdfs:subPropertyOf


Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 16:16:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:07 UTC