- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:05:38 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
To RDF Core WG members: Messages from me with these subject lines which are directed to Peter and CCd to the WG are NOT official WG responses or dispositions. Think of them as a private conversation between Peter and me (at this stage) which I am CCing to the WG for information purposes only, and as possible material for WG discussions of how to produce an appropriate disposition. -Pat ------ >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 >> FROM >> xxx aaa lll . where lll is a well-formed XML typed literal . >> >> INFER >> 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. > >peter I agree, and will try to get this fixed. To the fullest extent possible, I propose to remove all XML-related definitions, structures, etc. from the semantics document and simply refer to the Concepts document, using terminology defined there. And if I do use any examples (like the above, which I now see doesn't work) I will get Jeremy or Graham to write them for me. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 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 Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:04:32 UTC