Comments on new semantics initiative documents

I've quickly read through the Lbase spec and scanned the RDF(S) 
semantics.  My immediate thoughts are:

(a) Lbase performs a comparable role for RDF(S) semantics that N-triples 
does for its syntax.

(b) The RDF(S) semantics specified by translation to Lbase seems easier to 
follow and understand than the current model theoretic document.  This is, 
I think, because the explanatory structures used are more familiar to one 
who has some exposure to mathematics -- does this mean it's also easier to 
misunderstand?

...

And so to some more specific comments on the Lbase specification:

Section 2.3:

- is the set ID intended to contain any values other than integers and 
character strings?

- the rules of interpretation don't specify the interpretation of 
names.  (Now I think names are not valid formulae, so maybe that's OK, but 
then again neither are strings and numerals valid formulae.  I think a 
complete set of rules needs to contain all of these.)

- I think the syntax allows an expression to contain free variables, but I 
don't see any corresponding semantics.

- are the given interpretations for 'forall' and 'exists' the wrong way round?


Section 2.4:

- in the description of axiom schemata, it is not clear how one is expected 
to distinguish "schematic variables" from non-substitutable values.


Section 3.1:

- just below diagram, a typo: "avove".


#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 07:51:44 UTC