W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: reviewing RDF Semantics

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:25:24 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b0bba2802acfc8b@[]>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>Reviewing http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
>I can support approval for this great document!
>In what follows, I only make non-prohibitive remarks...
>| RDF Semantics
>| W3C Working Draft 12 December 2002
>should actally be
>   W3C Working Draft 17 December 2002
>but should later maybe
>   W3C Working Draft 17 January 2003
>| This Version:
>|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/
>should actually be
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
>but should later maybe
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/

Yes, both the above noted. I assume that dates and this-version 
things have to be only finally finalized when the thing is finally 
published, if you see what I mean...

>very nice Figure 2!

Omnigraffle and BBEdit are two really good reasons to use a Mac.

>| 3.2.4 rdf:value
>| [...]
>| Since the range of possible uses for rdf:value is so wide,
>| it is impossible to give a precise model-theoretic statement
>| which covers all the intended meanings or use cases. Users
>| are cautioned, therefore, that the use of rdf:value is
>| somewhat risky, and that it should be treated as a 'blank'
>| piece of RDF syntax whose meaning in any particular case
>| should be defined by the user, and may vary from application
>| to application. In practice, the intended meaning is often
>| clear from the context, but may be lost when graphs are
>| merged or when conclusions are inferred.
>maybe say that they never contribute to any entailments
>or some such

Good idea.

>| 3.3.1 A note on rdfs:Literal
>| The semantic conditions on rdfs-interpretations do not include
>| the condition that ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) must be a subset of LV.
>| While this would seem to be required for conformance with [RDFMS],
>| there is no way to impose this condition by any RDF assertion or
>| syntactic closure rule. This limitation is due to the fact that
>| RDF does not allow literals to occur in the subject position of a
>| triple, so there are severe restrictions on what can be said about
>| literals in RDF. Similarly, while properties may be asserted of
>| the the class rdfs:Literal, none of these can be validly


>       ^^^
>| transferred to literals themselves.
>as you know, it seems to me that (at least) typed literals can be
>perfect subjects (I really don't see why not)

I presume the XML-syntax problems still apply there also (??) If not, 
I agree. But I also no longer really care.... ;-)

>| 4. Vocabulary entailment and closure rules
>| [...]
>| 4.2 RDFS-entailment and RDFS closures (informative)
>| [...]
>| rdfs 4a' | xxx aaa yyy . | aaa rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .
>| rdfs 4b' | xxx aaa yyy . | aaa rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .
>(as I did remark before) those seem to be the same,
>but I guess you meant rdfs:range in rdfs4b'

Whoops. Yes.

>| 4.3 Datatype entailments (Informative)
>| [...]
>| rdfD 1 | ddd rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . | aaa ppp _:xxx .
>|        | aaa ppp "sss"^^ddd .         | _:xxx rdf:type ddd .
>additionally to that we have also been (succesfully) testing
>   rdfD 1b | ddd rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . | ddd rdfs:domain ddd .
>   rdfD 1c | ddd rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . | aaa ppp _:xxx .
>           | aaa ppp "sss"^^ddd .         | _:xxx ddd "sss" .

Right, but I think we've WG-decided not to include those, regrettably.

>| Appendix B: Proofs of lemmas.
>| [...]
>| RDF closure lemma. The Herbrand interpretation of the rdf-closure
>|   of E is an rdf-interpretation of E.
>| [...]
>| so HP contains rdf:type, which is H(rdf:type),
>I suppose (that) HP (wasn't defined so far) is defined to be the
>set of urirefs which occur either as arc labels in the graph,
>or as subjects of triples of the form s rdf:type rdf:Property

Right. What I meant that to be was like the IP of H, if you see what 
I mean. I ought to make that clearer.

Another way to go would be to use suffices throughout and write IP, 
IS etc as P<sub>I</sub>, S<sub>I</sub> , then this would be 
P<sub>H</sub>.  Peter P-S did that in the OWL documents, and it is in 
fact more correct. But this would make it all look a lot more 

>| Appendix C: Glossary of terms
>| [...]
>| Use (v.) contrasted with mention; to use a piece of syntax
>|   to denote or refer to something else. The normal way that
>|   language is used.
>   whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something
>   about a certain thing, we have to use, in this
>   sentence, not the thing itself but its name or
>   designation -- Alfred Tarski

Nice quote, I'll try to work it in. I bet it sounds even better in German.

>maybe also mention "mention"
>maybe also "paradox"

Hard to know where to stop, is the problem. I did have 'mention'  in 
there at one point but I realized that I hadn't used it in the text 
anywhere, so it seemed kind of daft to put it into the glossary.


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 18:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC