- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:46:48 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

pat hayes wrote: > > RDF Model Theory StrawDog proposal (draft 7/27/01)(typos fixed in sections 1 thru 5, sections 6,7,8 added.) I digested that by translating it to larch... http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFCoreMT.lsl $Id: RDFCoreMT.lsl,v 1.1 2001/07/31 19:38:19 connolly Exp $ In the course of getting it to sort check, I had some questions about the relationship of the set of resources with the LV set of literal values. I chatted with Pat a few minutes ago and I think we sorted it out. A few other details from my hardcopy: > 2. Interpretations [...] > All interpretations will be relative to a set of RDF nodes, called the vocabulary of the interpretation, Larch has a lot of machinery for finite/denumerable sets as opposed to sets in general. In my larch formalization, I made the vocabulary of an interpretation a finite set. Is that a fair assumption? [...] > An interpretation I (of vocab(I)) is defined by: > 1. A nonempty set R of resources, called the domain or universe of I. > <comment> Whatever resources are, this a set of those. </comment> Are literals included in the domain of an interpretation? [answer after discussion with PatH: yes.] [...] > >> if E is a set of triples then I(E) = false just in case I(E') = false for some asserted triple E' in E, otherwise I(E) = true. again, I used larch's finite set gizmo for such as set of triples. Is it fair to assume that the set-of-triples we're interested in are finite? [...] > 4. Terminology > > We say that I satisfies E if I(E)=true, and that E entails E' iff every interpretation which satisfies E also satisfies E'. > > More subtle relationships require some definitions. [...] I didn't get much further than this. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 15:46:49 UTC