- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:32:23 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_curt.html The document has now been given a more thorough dressing-up as a self-contained document. The heading structure has been revamped slightly, the various entailments are defined in their appropriate sections, a few comments added about character string/XML document/xsd:string agnosticism and a couple of trivial but worthwhile lemmas added. Also there was a bug in the Lbase datatyping section from an earlier edit, which has been corrected. It might still need a little XMLliteral terminology tweaking to exactly align with Concepts, noted by @@. This version makes no reference at all to any kind of closures, ways of testing for vocabulary entailments, etc.. As an alternative, there is another version: http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_append.html which is almost identical except it also has all the entailment rules included in a single appendix, with most of the text from the earlier editor's draft but without the 'entailment lemma' claims of completeness and therefore not requiring lengthy proofs, just as an informative listing of various valid inference principles. Most readers won't give a damn about completeness in any case, and the rules themselves are informative and useful to record, I feel. This version has almost all of the content of the original but avoids the problems which surround the task of proving completeness; and in either form is pretty much ready to go. (I could do another pass to put in more of the invisible glossary links, but I'll wait until the WG chooses one of the documents.) >Pat also informed me he is about to be 'communications challenged' for a >couple of weeks. Actually I just decided to invest in a bicoastal cable modem connection so I should be OK in a few days, probably by next Monday. >I'm not sure if Pat is still working on correcting the closure rules. Pat is now thinking of rewriting the entire closure rule idea and replacing it with a more sophisticated notion of rdf-/rdfs- derivation, but that will be a different document. >... >I am leaning towards proceeding with the curtailed document as a >proposed rec candidate. I am assuming that removal of an informative >section should not force a second last call. DanC? The closure rules >can always be published separately as a note. This way we can have a >proposed rec candidate for review by Friday. Please take the above as alternative candidates for such a document. I am happy with either alternative, the WG can decide. I will vote for _append over _curt, however, myself :-) >I'm still concerned about the presence of the LBase form. I'd like to >be sure we have got things right, and I'm not sure what argument would >convince me that the lbase section was correct, given the difficulties >we have encountered with the closure rules. Really, they have almost nothing to do with one another. The Lbase is an alternative presentation of the MT, not a system of rules. 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@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 22:32:26 UTC