- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:23:19 -0600
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com, patrick.stickler@nokia.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
An updated version of the MT document can be found at http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-draft-J.html This is not *quite* finished, in that two of the proofs are not yet completely written out (marked by @@@@). Also I may need to re-word the rdfs closure lemma slightly. But as I may not have time today to get this done, and since most of the changes can be checked independently of the math fine-structure, I thought I would pass it around in this state for eyes-overing. I should get the proofs done tonight and a publication version ready and code-checked by Wednesday. The main changes are styled in yellow (to remove, change the 'new' style in the header). Ive made several substantial changes to the document, briefly explained here. 1. Added some explanatory purple prose going on about the nature of interpretations, what entailment really means, etc., and made several prose changes, mostly following Graham's suggestions, eg 'identical RDF graphs' instead of 'the same RDF graph'.. (Also, got rid of (most of) the brackets). 2. Trashed the completely unreadable Appendix on graph definitions, and re-written the account in the main text. I think this is good enough for any reasonable reader, and the long stuff was just a distraction. After a month, I couldn't follow it myself. [In this version, graphs are not tidy on literals, which is the most 'conservative' assumption for the MT. That can easily be changed, if required, in later versions, with small changes to the rest of the document. ] 3. Reorganized many of the graph definitions and put them all together into a new section 0.3 4. Put links back from technical terms to their definitions in many parts of the document, as suggested by Jeremy, particularly where the first use is remote from the definition. [Hypertext lives!] 5. Made a few technical changes, mostly arising from actually proving the lemmas, some of which have had to be re-worded slightly to avoid the counterexamples noted by Jeremy and Graham, which in turn involved having some extra definitions. Ive stated a few extra lemmas, but I know they are in fact useful because I needed them for the proofs of the other lemmas; and Ive re-ordered the material in that section to make it flow better. 6. One slightly important technical change is the removal of one of the conditions on an rdfs-interpretation, concerning rdfs:Literal. Without this, the rdfs-entailment lemma would fail, it turns out, since there is no way to write a closure rule that forces things with type 'rdfs:Literal' to actually be the values of literals. I've put a comment about this in section 6.1. This is the only substantial change to the MT . 7. Deleted section 7 on containers until we get that sorted out. Pat PS. I havn't done all the changes suggested by the readers. The one I feel bad about is not altering example 1 to be more 'realistic' as requested by Patrick, and which I promised to do. That is a combination of laziness and having lost my copy of the graphical-drawing software. If I promise to do that for the final version, will this be OK for now? Basically, I want to get the correct RDFS rules, and the idea of vocabulary entailment, out into the public arena as quickly as possible. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 13:23:11 UTC