- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:23:24 +0200
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > > > MUST: > > replace "This document address these two requirements." with > > <<< > > These two requirements are primarily addressed by the RDF Model Theory > > (ref) and the RDF Test Cases (ref). > > > > This document describes an alternative complimentry approach. > > >>> > Dan: > I wrote the status section. Per > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0256.html > I propose a simpler change: > s/This document addresses these two requirements./ > This document is motivated by these two requirements./ > Does that satisfy your concern? Sorry I missed that ... That's certainly an improvement in the status. I am convinced that the Model Theory needs to be in the references, and mentioned in the introduction, and an acknowledgement that using model theories as the basis for layering, while not unproblematic has not been disastrous. In my view, those requirements are fully addressed by the MT and Test Cases. This document legitimately takes another view of the same requirements. But it should not diminish the value of our REC track docs. A possible change which would clarify that, would be section 1. e.g. Add <<< Model theoretic semantics has already proved a useful tool for discussing and resolving issues related to layering in the semantic web. Specifically, the semantics of OWL [in preparation] is related to the semantics of RDF and RDFS [RDF MT], by model theoretic means. >>> And then move on to the difficulties with this approach in section 2. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 08:23:37 UTC