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

Re: More semantic comments

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:13:33 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b23b9f5e6b865c7@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>Global sp:
>truthvalue or truth-value (both occur)

All now truth-value

>After figure 1
>[["whatever"^^ex:b]] => [["whatever"^^<ex:b>]]


>[[1.6 Unlabeled nodes ...]] => [[1.6 Blank nodes ...]]
>[[See http://www.w3.org/...#rdfms-identity-anon-resources for a
>sumamry and pointers to further discussion on this issue.]]
>[[unlabeled nodes]]=>[[blank nodes]] * 2
>[[Notice however that since two unlabeled nodes cannot
>have the same labal, ]]
>[[Notice however that since two different blank nodes are not equal, ]]

All rewritten. All references to 'unlabeled' purged.

>before Monotonicity Lemma
>Finally, the following is a trivial
><<suggest-add: but important>>
>consequence ... entailment,
>but it may be worth stating ...
>satisfy it.
>(I don't think it's appropriate or clear to talk about many 
>implemented systems here)


>possible spell construing or constructing? subsets of the universe

Sentence deleted

>[[When the RDFS vocabulary is added, ... semantic conditions.]]
>suggest-replace (in brackets)
>[[(The RDFS part of the formal semantics does cover domain and
>range conditions for the properties used in this vocabulary)]]


>Given that you have gone for the MAY vocabulary on extensions, I 
>think in 3.3 you are trying to say:
>[[.. lesser burden on implementors ]]
>Semantic extensions MAY strengthen the semantics to iff.


>[[There is however no way in current RDF to specify exactly ...]
>[[It does not specify exactly ..]


>I found the following unintelligible, possibly because I don't have 
>access to the XSD example in your (or mayber Peter's) head.
>[[Users shoudl take care to distinghuish the value space ...
>identical when viewed as class members.]]

Yes, it is rather odd. The plain fact is that the XML schema specs 
are logically contradictory when one thinks of a value space as a 
set. Enquires have determined that XMLSchema value spaces are not 
sets, but something like categories or algebras. The same thing, seen 
as a member of two different value spaces, is considered to be two 
different things. This is simply impossible in RDFS if we interpret 
value spaces as classes. So I was trying to give the reader a warning 
about this without being so coarse as to imply anything derogatory 
about XML schema.

>[[Implementors who wish to check any kind ...
>backchaining on the clousre rules, for example.]]
>(any normative suggestions about impl techniques may degrade the 
>value of others)


>That's it - no more comments at this stage.

OK. Many thanks. Right now Ive finished fixing the proofs (they read 
much better now) and am working on the boilerplate, references, etc.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   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 Monday, 11 November 2002 18:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC