Re: updated draft of model theory

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