W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: response to comment pfps-04

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:59:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030204.175922.68543488.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: response to comment pfps-04
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:03:42 -0600

> The closure rules for RDF are incomplete.  There are XML documents
> without an enclosing language tag that have the same canonical form as
> XML documents with and enclosing language tag.  This means that the
> RDF entailment lemma is false.
> ----
> This comment is correct and the error will be corrected.
> The new closure rule will simply state
> xxx aaa lll .         where lll is a well-formed XML typed literal .
> xxx aaa mmm .       where mmm is a well-formed XML typed literal with 
> the same canonical form as lll.
> where 'canonical form' is defined explicitly using the construction 
> in the Concepts document.   I would also like to add prose like this:
> "In rule rdf2, 'same canonical form' should be interpreted so as to 
> take into account any language tags which may be present. For 
> example, this rule will sanction the following inference:
> <ex:sub> <ex:prop> "<rdf lang="fr"><word>chat</word></rdf>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
> ->
> <ex:sub> <ex:prop> "<word>chat</word>"@fr^^rdf:XMLLiteral .

I don't believe that this works.

> Any objections/ comments?
> Pat

Well, it appears to me that there needs to be more work in making sure that
the treatment of XMLLiteral is the same in Syntax, Concepts, and
Semantics.  Right now, it appears to me that there are differences.

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 17:59:38 UTC

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