- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:34:31 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 08:03 AM 7/23/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >The model theory defines an interpretation for a single statement. We also >need to formally deal with sets of statements i.e. > >{s1, s2, ..., sn} is true under an interpetation I if and only if each si >is true under I. > >Depending on our decision about anonymous resources we may also need >an interpretation statments containing them. Only the subject case >is shown here - the others are similar: > >_:a <p> <o> . is true under an interpretation I if and only if > > p and o are members of U and > there exists ?a such that ?a is a member of R and > (?a, IN(o)) is a member of IEXT(I(p)) > >And finally (I don't know how to say this formally) the scope of >the names of the form _:name is a set of statements. Concerning "and finally"... I think what Pat hinted at in the last teleconference was that certain special identifiers (e.g. of the form _:name) might be global to the scope of any given set of statements, but that if two such sets were brought together then such identifiers would be rewritten to avoid conflicts, thus ensuring uniqueness in the new, combined set. (It's similar to the renaming of free variables that is required when evaluating lambda expressions where an argument to a function contains free variable names that are also bound within the function body.) Thus, the special handling of "variables" takes the form of a syntactic manipulation when statement sets are brought together. Otherwise, they behave just like the other identifiers - URIs. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 18:05:37 UTC