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

Re: Update semantics LCC

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:43:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030116.134312.28089272.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Update semantics LCC
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:06:25 +0000

> Hi Peter,
> At 14:54 15/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >Summary:  The updated semantics LCC still has critical problems.


> >The semantics still has strange behaviour with respect to
> >rdfs:Literal and untyped literals.
> I note your later post where you point out this may be covered but need 
> clearer explanation, if I understand you correctly.
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0091.html
> [[Actually, it might be OK, but only because ...]]
> I'm currently inclined to deal with this in last call, but we will discuss 
> this at Friday's telecon.
> [...]

The issue that I refer to here is that the model theory does not require
that "a" is an element of the class extension of rdfs:Literal.  There is
nothing technically wrong with this stance, but it has strange

> >The Lbase appendix still has errors.  It does not accord rdfs:XMLLiteral
> >its special status with respect to language tags.  It is not a consequence
> >of the RDFS model theory that rdfs:XMLLiteral(?x) implies rdfs:Literal(?x).
> >It is not a consequence of the RDFS model theory that untyped literals
> >belong to rdfs:Literal.  There are other errors as well.
> Hmm, that's a shame.  However, again I think of these as editorial errors 
> and suggest that we take those that we can't do as a quick fix, as last 
> call issues.

Hmm.  I would regard this as a less-than-ideal situation.


> Brian

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:44:39 UTC

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