comments on semantics document

Some of the comments seem to me to be editorial, some I have already 
responded to by (suggested) changes to the text of the document, and 
some are larger issues requiring discussion (IMO). This message 
summarizes my take on which is which.

The latest editors draft can be found at

it is in a slightly scruffy state just at present, in places. The 
changes from the last call are linked to a discussion section.

horrocks-01 requires discussion. Details later.

pan-01 and qu-03 should be merged, IMO, into a single issue which 
requires discussion. Details later.

pfps-01 requires discussion. Details later.

pfps-02 is editorial; I will undertake to correct the Lbase 
translations once the model theory is fully stable in all its 
details. The intended purpose of the appendix is to be an informative 
summary of the MT in any case.

pfps-03 I propose to simply reject, as a statement of opinion with 
which I do not agree, concerning an informative part of the document.

pfps-04 , -05, -06 and -07 and -10 are editorial.  Most of them 
correctly locate bugs or infelicities. The required corrections have 
been made in the editor's draft. So far nobody has objected to these, 
but take a look.

pfps-08 is a difference of opinion between Peter and myself about the 
appropriate semantics for rdf:XMLLiteral. The difference only becomes 
visible when one gets to OWL-Full expressivity. I have made editorial 
changes to clarify the point, but have not changed the content of the 

pfps-09 is editorial, and I have made appropriate changes to the 
relevant section. This change was discussed somewhat already within 
the WG, and Patrick had some objections, but we have talked those 
through and he is willing to let the changes stand. Note, these 
changes do not affect any entailments.

pfps-21 is editorial. I have purged the term 'namespace' from the document.

timbl-21 requires discussion.

qu-01 looks editorial to me, but it may impact test cases, so I havnt 
made the relevant changes yet. Discussion?

qu-02 seems out of place to me since RDF does not have the notion of 
functional relation. I have had some email correspondence with Qu 
about this, and he wants it discussed. I would be unhappy if the RDF 
semantics imposed semantic conditions which could not be reflected in 
any RDF entailments, on general methodological grounds. Discussion?

qu-03 should be merged with pan-01, see above.

Reagle has withdrawn reagle-03.

More details later about the 'big' issues.

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	   for spam

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 17:20:22 UTC